Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

NATO (Strategy)

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation last reviewed the relationship within its overall strategy between conventional and nuclear weapons; and what role Her Majesty's Government played in that process.

Mr. Heffer: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation last reviewed the relationship within its overall strategy between conventional and nuclear weapons; and what role Her Majesty's Government played in that process.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): NATO and its member nations keep all aspects of Alliance strategy under constant review, in order to ensure that it remains effective. As Defence Ministers reaffirmed at the meeting of the Defence Planning Committee last month, the strategy of flexible response and forward defence, based on an appropriate mix of adequate and effective nuclear and conventional forces, remains vital to our security.

Mr. Fatchett: Does the Secretary of State accept that the mix to which he referred is increasingly veering towards the nuclear and that that imposes particular constraints on conventional weapons and on expenditure on conventional weapons? Does he further accept that, because of those constraints, the British Army has been unable to place orders for the new generation of tanks and that that is typical of the problems facing the armed forces? When will that order be placed, and how much of it will come to the Vickers factory in Leeds?

Mr. Younger: I am afraid that I cannot agree with either of the hon. Gentleman's points. On the first point, of a much larger defence budget, no less than 95 per cent. is spent on conventional, not nuclear, armaments. That disposes effectively of the hon. Gentleman's first point.
Secondly, as he will be aware, a number of new regiments of Challenger tanks are now in production, and we ordered a seventh regiment last year. Decisions will have to be taken about further replacements, and I hope that that will be done before the end of the year.

Mr. Heffer: Are not the Government speaking—as the Indians in the old Westerns used to say—with forked voice?—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Tongue."] Forked voice or

forked tongue, it is the same thing. On the one hand the Government say that they welcome the initiatives of the Soviet Union, and on the other they introduce proposals that reinforce the concept of nuclear weapons. Is it not time that they accepted the initiative of the Soviet Union and got down to believing the words of Mr. Gorbachev rather than suggesting that he speaks with a forked tongue? Is it not time that they did something positive for once about getting rid of nuclear weapons, rather than using conventional weapons to reintroduce them, which is what they are doing at the moment?

Mr. Younger: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I suggest that he must be thinking with a forked mind. It was not in any sense Mr. Gorbachev's initiative that led to the INF treaty. It was an initiative taken by the Western Alliance in 1981 which, after a few years of prevarication, was eventually agreed to by the Soviet Union. The thing that really brought the Russians to the negotiating table was the knowledge that we were prepared to defend ourselves.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we were to obey Opposition Members' theories there would be an extraction of our independent nuclear deterrent, and if we were to extract our nuclear input from the negotiations independently it would be grossly destablising and would upset the whole process of negotiation?

Mr. Younger: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. If we had obeyed the instructions of Opposition Members—which, thank goodness, we did not—we should have cruise missiles for ever facing each other in Europe, which we now do not. If we agreed to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in future, there is no doubt that further reductions and arms control would be very unlikely.

Mr. Thorne: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if we had no nuclear deterrent, we would need to spend three times as much on conventional weapons to maintain any parity with the Soviet Union?

Mr. Younger: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend's sentiment, but I must beg to differ. Even if we were to spend three times as much, we would not get anything like the same effect that we get out of our present nuclear deterrent. It is worth reminding ourselves that the entire NATO Alliance—all countries of all political persuasions—is united in its determination that the doctrine of flexible response is the best security for all of us.

Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that when he tries to detract from Mr. Gorbachev having made any contribution to such an agreement as we have recently had he makes himself look utterly ridiculous? When he insists on the phrase "flexible response", as he always does, will he take into account the fact that, in certain circumstances, it means that the NATO Alliance, or Britain, would be prepared to use nuclear weapons first? It may be that even he is not insane enough to contemplate that.

Mr. Younger: If the right hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying so, I never said that Mr. Gorbachev made no contribution to the INF treaty. He has. I have made it clear that he has made a contribution to it, but it was not


his initiative that brought us to the discussion. It was a Western initiative. The right hon. Gentleman really must accept that.
None of the NATO allies has any doubt about the use of flexible response. It is based on the facts that NATO will never use any weapon first, and, if NATO were to be attacked by an aggressor, it would have a deterrent and, if necessary, in extremis, would use it.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: What is my right hon. Friend's view of the impact on strategic planning of the yo-yo nuclear and conventional defence policies of the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition?

Mr. Younger: It is too difficult for me to speculate on the Leader of the Opposition's shifting views on nuclear defence.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that supplementary questions must relate to the question on the Order Paper.

Mr. O'Neill: Is the Secretary of State still confident that he can meet his forward defence responsibilities within NATO, given reports about the deplorable rundown in the surface fleet? Is he prepared to announce orders for the type 23 frigates that the country and our shipyards desperately require?

Mr. Younger: I most warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position and look forward to debating defence matters with him. I am sure that he will be able to put forward his party's nuclear defence policy every bit as well as the Leader of the Opposition.
There has been no official report of the sort that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We intend in future to keep a force of about 50 destroyers and frigates. I shall announce orders for further frigates as soon as the process of assessing bids is completed.

Advanced Defence Equipment Project

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the level of collaboration between the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany on advanced defence equipment projects.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The Federal Republic of Germany has been one of our most frequent and successful partners in co-operative equipment procurement programmes, and is likely to remain so.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that as we are happily taking the lead on key aspects in the development of the European fighter aircraft—for example, the airframe and engine—in the true spirit of European co-operation with the Germans, it would be right and fair for other aspects of the development programme to be led by other partners, including Germany? In particular, I refer to radar.

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend will be aware that the MOU for the European fighter aircraft provides for a work share based on the declared off-take of participating countries. Therefore, the work share of a country or

company for any particular piece of equipment will depend upon the assessment of competitive bids that are sought for each type of equipment.

Ms. Short: Does the Minister agree that there is enormous worry in Germany about a strategy that might involve a nuclear war being fought on its soil and that that is likely to undermine co-operation? Is it true that, in evidence to the Defence Select Committee, his Department recently said that Britain's and NATO's strategy is to look forward to a limited nuclear war in Europe?

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope the hon. Lady recognises that NATO's strategy is to prevent war.

Mr. Jack: One other successful collaborative venture with Germany has been the Tornado. When will my hon. Friend make an announcement about the mid-life update of that aeroplane?

Mr. Sainsbury: I agree that that has been a remarkably successful collaborative venture. However, I cannot answer my hon. Friend's particular question at this stage.

Mr. Rogers: Does the Minister accept that it is about time that the West Germans committed themselves to the ECR 90 radar rather than pursuing the route of the American Phantom derivation? Does he further accept that the ECR 90 radar is important to British industry, not only because it is of European design and fulfils all the operational requirements of the European fighter aircraft, but, more than that, because it safeguards our technology and prevents us from becoming subservient to the Americans in this important sector? It will also save many thousands of jobs in Scotland.

Mr. Sainsbury: I agree that the radar is a vital part of the equipment of the EFA. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that competitive bids from two consortia, both of which include British companies, are being analysed.

Service Men (Pensions)

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when service men will be able to purchase additional voluntary contributions for pension purposes.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): Facilities for service men to make additional voluntary contributions to enhance pension benefits in particular categories have been available from earlier this year. Action is in hand to extend the range and scope of those facilities as far and as quickly as is practicable.

Mr. Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend accept that his answer will be widely welcomed in the armed forces, not only because it will maintain the quality of the pension, as is the case in civilian life, but because it will be especially good for morale? It will also help in the matter of retention.

Mr. Freeman: I agree that the armed forces pension scheme is excellent. It costs the taxpayer £1 billion a year and enables a service man after, for example, 22 years' service to retire with an immediate and indexed pension. That must contribute to the excellent morale of our armed forces.

Mr. Stern: Has my hon. Friend learnt from the experience of other Government Departments that in the coming year there is scope for improving the arrangements for members of the armed forces to take up additional voluntary contributions? Does he agree that the need for flexibility in pension provision—however good the armed services pension scheme—is one of the great advances, especially for the armed forces, of the Social Security Act 1986?

Mr. Freeman: I agree with my hon. Friend. It was not just the 1986 Act but the 1987 Act that made provision for additional voluntary contributions, both free-standing and in-house, for service men and, indeed, for civilians. I confirm that we are making rapid progress on completing the introduction of facilities for additional voluntary contributions for pensions for service men.

Military Stores

Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current total value of military equipment held in his Department's stores; and what resources his Department devotes to safeguarding these stores against fire.

Mr. Freeman: The most recent estimate of the value of stocks held in major stores depots is approximately £10 billion. Fire prevention measures include dispersal and segregation of stocks; provision of fire control equipment, such as fire mains and hydrants; automatic fire detection and suppression systems; and our own fire brigades, where appropriate.

Mr. Graham: Is the Minister aware that after the fire at Donnington a number of recommendations were not implemented before there was a second fire? Will he assure us that he will instruct his Department fully to implement safety proposals in all Ministry of Defence stores so that people can sleep safely and comfortably at night?

Mr. Freeman: I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the personnel at our military units, and, indeed, any civilians nearby, can sleep safely at night. After the 1983 fire all the recommendations made by the military board of inquiry were acted upon. After the fire at Donnington a few months ago, a military board of inquiry was set up to examine just how many and to what degree the recommendations made in 1983 were properly implemented. I look forward, as do all my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence, to receiving the report of that board of inquiry.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: What is the annual wastage from Ministry of Defence establishments as a result of fire or other damage?

Mr. Freeman: Over the past 10 years I estimate that the wastage figure has been about £50 million per annum, but, of course, that must be set in the context of stores valued at about £10 billion.

Trident

Mr. Cartwright: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement on the progress of the Trident programme.

Mr. Younger: I am pleased to be able to reaffirm that the Trident programme remains on schedule and to budget.

Mr. Cartwright: Will the Secretary of State confirm that all work on Trident submarine building at Barrow has been halted for the past three weeks as a direct result of the management's attempt to compel the entire work force to take its summer holiday during the same two weeks in August? In view of the past successes at Barrow, is it not ridiculous that that Victorian attitude to industrial relations should be allowed to imperil something as vital as Trident? As there is no sign of a settlement in the future, what steps will the Secretary of State take to safeguard the future of the Trident programme?

Mr. Younger: I would not wish to intervene in what is essentially an industrial dispute between employers and employees, but I hope that that dispute will be resolved as soon as possible.

Mr. Fallon: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the subcontract for the Trident shiplift at Faslane will shortly be awarded either to Harland and Wolff or to Cleveland Bridge in my constituency? Will he confirm that, this time, the competition between Northern Ireland and the north-east will be fair?

Mr. Younger: Yes. I confirm that every possible effort will be made to ensure that the competition is absolutely fair. The work on the shiplift facilities and so on at Faslane is presently proceeding on schedule.

Dr. Godman: With reference to the Clyde end of the Trident programme, will the Secretary of State now confirm that the contract for the floating jetty for the Royal Naval armaments division at Coulport is to be awarded to McAlpine and that it will be constructed of concrete at Ardyne Point?

Mr. Younger: I cannot confirm any decisions of that sort. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put down a question about it, I shall try to answer it.

Mr. Burt: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as an investment for peace, Trident is still tremendously effective? At its peak it will be absorbing only 11 per cent. of the defence equipment budget, which is less than the Tornado aircraft will absorb at its peak.

Mr. Younger: Yes, it is certainly true that the Trident programme is not as expensive as the Tornado programme, but it is extremely valuable. There is no way in which, by equivalent expenditure, an equivalent benefit could be given to the defence of the West and Britain.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Secretary of State give the House the assurance that the Select Committee was unable to receive from his officials, that the delays in the Trident programme, in particular the delays at Aldermaston and Burghfield, are now being avoided and that the programme is truly up to schedule and not delayed, as has been suggested?

Mr. Younger: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it would be right for me to give a proper and measured response to the Select Committee report. I hope to do so as soon as possible.

British Army Equipment Exhibition

Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why it is the Government's policy not to disclose who is invited to the British Army equipment exhibition.

Mr. Sainsbury: It has been the policy of this and previous Administrations not to release details of invitations to the British Army equipment exhibition. Invitations are issued on a confidential basis, and it would be a breach of trust to release names.

Mr. Soley: That is a pretty weak and pathetic excuse. Given that we are supposed to be protecting a free and open society, would it not be a good idea if, in common with most other Western democracies, we were a little better at freedom of information?

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the rights of those who are asked to the exhibition to the protection of their own confidential information. We should respect their entitlement to that.

Mr. Couchman: When my hon. Friend looks at the exhibitors at the British Army equipment exhibition, will he bear in mind Vickers' need to be able to forward-plan its programme and make an announcement as soon as possible about the new tank replacement, which is needed for the 1990s?

Mr. Sainsbury: The equipment on display covers a wide range and is a valuable display for all who attend. It is probably more important for those who attend from overseas than for members of the British Army, who can see the equipment in other ways.

Mr. Wallace: Given the Minister's negative attitude to freedom of information in the context of these invitations, do the Government propose to adopt a more open attitude when it comes to supporting the United Nations register of arms transfers?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am not sure that that arises directly out of this question. If there were an effectively policed and verified international register, we would support it.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As information on who is invited to this military exhibition is to remain confidential, will my hon. Friend slip an invitation to the Leader of the Opposition, so that he can pick up some——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please stick to the question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and useful suggestion. I assure——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said that we must stick to the question.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is fine to rule a question out of order, but it seems senseless to rule it out of order if you then allow it to be answered.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the Minister was going to answer the bit that was relevant.

Mr. Sainsbury: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A large number of right hon. and hon. Members receive invitations and attend the exhibition. If other right hon. and hon. Members would like to attend and would let us know, we should probably be able to arrange invitations.

Cruise Missiles

Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy not to acquire for British forces any warheads previously removed from cruise missiles under the terms of the intermediate nuclear forces treaty; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Ian Stewart): The warheads for cruise missiles being withdrawn under the terms of the INF treaty are the property of the United States Government, and their disposal is therefore entirely a matter for them.

Ms. Primarolo: Could not some of the nuclear-capable warheads of the multi-launch rocket system that Britain is now acquiring, or some of the American base nuclear weapons in this country, be recycled as cruise missiles, which were supposedly negotiated away under the INF agreement? The Department of Energy in the United States told Congress that that was likely to happen. Therefore, will the Minister give a categorical assurance that it will not happen to any weapons, British or American, based in this country?

Mr. Stewart: I think that the hon. Lady may be referring to nuclear material contained in warheads. As regards warheads from cruise missiles, I should point out that we are getting rid of ground-launched cruise missiles from this country under the INF treaty. We have no plans to acquire submarine or air-launched cruise missiles for our forces, so the hon. Lady's worries do not arise.

Mr. Sayeed: Will my hon. Friend continue to do his level best to continue to reduce the cost of defence procurement?

Mr. Stewart: Certainly, in such modest ways as I can contribute to that worthy objective. However, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, who is more directly concerned with these matters, will have heard my hon. Friend's remarks.

Trident

Mr. Allan Roberts: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he proposes to take in the light of the conclusions of the Defence Committee in its recent report on the progress of the trident programme, with particular reference to the allegedly inaccurate evidence given to the Committee by his Department.

Mr. Younger: A formal Government response to the Committee's comprehensive report will be made in due course and it would be inappropriate for me to anticipate that response. I was, however, pleased to note that the Committee felt that the Trident programme was generally well run.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that the Government are still misleading the House and the country about the cost of Trident? The Ministry of Defence is being economic with the truth rather than economic with taxpayers' money, and the Select Committee on Defence has condemned the Ministry for misleading the Committee and not telling the truth to the House.

Mr. Younger: That is a serious charge. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to anticipate our response to a Select Committee report. He is completely wrong to say that we have misled the House on the cost of Trident which is decreasing in terms of foreign exchange costs and actual costs. I should have thought that he would be pleased to know that.

Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that whatever figure we take for the cost of Trident, it represents a comparatively modest proportion of our future defence spending and, as such, is excellent value for money? Will he further confirm that at least one of the two main parties remains firmly committed to that programme, although both were committed to it nine years ago?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. By any standards, the cost of Trident is extremely good value for money. I repeat that 95 per cent. of our much larger defence budget is spent on non-nuclear defence. That answers the other part of my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State reflect on the balance between a strategic defence commitment to Trident and the need to maintain, as the Select Committee on Defence said today, a viable surface fleet with more frigates and destroyers in operation than the number that he has available now? Will he give us a straight answer about the number of frigates and destroyers that are in operation today? When will he update his commitment to place orders for at least three frigates by the end of June?

Mr. Younger: The size of the Royal Navy is at a very high level. There are about 143 commissioned ships, and the Government intend to keep about 50 destroyers or frigates as part of a large and effective fleet. At present, 47 ships are available for service—and very valuable service they are doing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that whereas 10 years ago frigates and destroyers spent 27 per cent. of their lives in refit, today they spend only 12 per cent. of their lives in refit, which is a great improvement.

Mr. Franks: May I remind the Secretary of State that the calculation of the cost of Trident has been based on an exchange rate of £1·30 to the pound? In view of the recent, but long-sustained, increase in the exchange rate, is it not time to take a new exchange rate and thus reduce the figures presented to the House?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is correct to say that the movement in the exchange rate has an effect on these matters. It has been a convention that towards the beginning of each year we announce the recosting of the Trident programme, and we base that figure on the exchange rate of the previous June. It is best to keep the figures comparable by using the same system on each occasion. As my hon. Friend knows, in each of the past two years there have been substantial reductions in the exchange rate costs and the actual costs of the Trident programme.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is irresponsible to keep on building nuclear-powered submarines while we still have no safe way of disposing of the propulsion units when they are decommissioned? Will he comment on the reports in the Scottish press on Sunday

that he has decided to consider disposal of those units at sea off the coast of Scotland? Has he decided that, and at so, when will a formal announcement be made about it?

Mr. Younger: That report in the papers on Sunday had no basis in fact. No such decision has been taken. It is inescapable, because so many nations have nuclear-powered submarines, that their disposal must be considered. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have been considering the problem for some time.

Cadet Units

Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cadet units of the three services exist in inner city areas of the United Kingdom; and what steps are being taken to examine further expansion.

Mr. Freeman: There are 65 detachments of the Army Cadet Force, Air Training Corps and Sea Cadets located in or near inner-city areas. We are examining the feasibility of introducing a pilot expansion programme in the west midlands, initially covering the Army Cadet Force and, we hope, the Sea Cadets.

Mr. King: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is much better that young people honour our flag as the sea cadets do, rather than dishonouring it as hooligans overseas? In considering further support for the cadet movement, will he pay particular attention to the training ship Cirius in the Bartley Green area of my constituency, which has only just commenced operations and requires all the encouragement that it can possibly get for its excellent work?

Mr. Freeman: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The cadets is not a military organisation but is part of the national youth movement. It contributes to good citizenship, a sense of good discipline and is to be congratulated. I understand that the unit in my hon. Friend's constituency is a trial one and I shall follow its progress, as I am sure he will, very carefully.

Mr. Cryer: When the Ministry of Defence is dealing with cadet units, how does it explain that one of the philosophies of the British armed forces is the potential mass extermination of men, women and children on a scale never yet contemplated on our planet, and that this will be done whatever the views of those men, women and children, through the use of nuclear weapons? Is that not one of the most horrific and immoral attitudes, similar to the extermination of the Jews by Hitler in the 1939 war? How does the Minister square that with the philosophy——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going miles wide of the question. [Interruption.]

Mr. Cryer: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must stick to the question.

Sir Jim Spicer: I am certain that my hon. Friend will be assured of the support of most hon. Members in his laudable efforts to increase the number of units in inner city areas, but is there any way in which he can encourage local authorities and education authorities to stop blocking the expansion of units and to encourage them to be set up in association with schools?

Mr. Freeman: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is regrettable that some schools and local education authorities do not permit those seeking to establish cadet organisations in schools——

Mr. Rogers: Where?

Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) will table a question, I shall answer it. The purpose of the cadet organisations is to serve Queen and country and to defend this country.

Mr. Tony Banks: Would it not be better if the Minister encouraged our young people to join the woodcraft folk [Interruption.]——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are making slow progress.

Mr. Banks: It is a fairly reasonable question. If they joined the woodcraft folk they could learn about peaceful co-existence and go to the countryside and have a good time rather than learning about killing people.

Mr. Freeman: The purpose of the cadet organisations and the junior elements of the regular armed forces is to teach, in part, the elements of self-discipline, self-respect and service to the community.

Bullying

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received seeking further action to combat bullying in the Army.

Mr. Freeman: I have received no such representations since I announced the measures to combat bullying to the House on 26 January. I last made a statement on progress in implementing these measures on 7 June.

Mr. Knapman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the steps that he has taken to date. Will he say what are the costs involved and how many allegations of bullying have been made?

Mr. Freeman: The full cost of implementing the measures that I announced is approximately £2 million per annum. The Ministry of Defence has not shrunk from allocating the necessary resources for dealing with the problem. Over the past 18 months there have been about 130 allegations of bullying, of which 104 were investigated and 60-odd were found to be completely without foundation.

Mr. Bernie Grant: Is the Minister aware that two of the most obnoxious forms of bullying in the Army are racial harassment and racial abuse? In view of the recent exposure of the practice in the Army, what does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Freeman: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's statement. Racial harassment and racial discrimination are obnoxious. The Government's position has been made crystal clear on that subject. No racial harassment or discrimination is permitted or tolerated in the British armed forces.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a clear distinction between bullying and teasing, and will he assure the House that his Department will always carefully evaluate allegations of bullying in that light?

Mr. Freeman: Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend, but I am sure that he would not wish to suggest that bullying is something that the British Army should tolerate. It is absolutely obnoxious and unnecessary. One does not need to bully people in order to draw the best out of them and instil in them a sense of self-discipline.

Dog Training

Mr. Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement on the progress of the efficiency study into the activities relating to dog training at RAF Newton and the RAVC centre, Melton Mowbray; and when the report will be available.

Mr. Freeman: The consultants report should be received by the Ministry by August. A decision on the future of training will be made as soon as possible thereafter.

Mr. Latham: Now that the 11 th investigation in 22 years into the training of dogs is coming to an end, will my hon. Friend please stop wasting money on all these interminable investigations and simply let the RAVC get on with its valuable job?

Mr. Freeman: That is a trifle uncharitable. We are not wasting taxpayers' money by making sure that there is a thorough and proper study of the options available. I hope that my hon. Friend will avail himself of the Ministry of Defence's invitation to come in and express his views in detail on the subject.

Nuclear Weapons Testing (Compensation)

Mr. Clay: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received seeking the establishment of a compensation fund to assist service men who claim that their health was adversely affected by their participation in nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s.

Mr. Sainsbury: A number of proposals have been made by right hon. and hon. Members and by others regarding compensation for participants in the United Kingdom's nuclear weapon test programme. The Government remain confident, however, that the radiological safety precautions adopted during the test programme were effective and that the chance of anyone suffering harm to health as a consequence of participation in the tests was extremely small. We believe that the recently published NRPB report vindicates this view.

Mr. Clay: Is it not the case that, apart from deaths from leukemia and multiple myeloma, which are now established, there are many other instances of death from various diseases among those test veterans? Is it not also the case that a high proportion of them are sterile and that those who are not sterile have had partners who have given birth to deformed children to a remarkable extent, well above the average that one would expect? Are the Government simply mean, callous and heartless, or is the reason why they will not pay up that they are terrified that to do so would have the most devastating effect on the current debate on nuclear weapons and civil nuclear power?

Mr. Sainsbury: I have a great deal of sympathy with those who are suffering ill health and who firmly and sincerely believe that they are suffering because of their


participation in the tests. However, if the hon. Gentleman studies the NRPB report he will find that it in no way supports the allegations that he has just made.

Mr. Sean Hughes: Is it not particularly disgraceful that a Government who are so obsessed with the role of nuclear weapons in their defence policy can be so dismissive of those who have suffered the most appalling injuries in the promotion of that weapon?

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that underlying the phrasing of his question is the assumption that there is a direct connection between the ill health from which those people are suffering and their participation in the tests. That view is not supported by the NRPB report, and I can assure him that if there were definite evidence linking the ill health of participants to their participation in the tests we would of course come forward with offers of compensation.

Mr. Higgins: Can the Minister undertake to review the figures each year to see whether there is any clear statistical correlation as the situation develops?

Mr. Sainsbury: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Further work will be done by the NRPB to follow up the excellent work which it has already done and which has led, I am glad to say, to what has been recognised as a genuinely independent and authoritative report.

British Army Equipment Exhibition

Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received seeking the withdrawal of invitations to attend the British Army equipment exhibition from 26 June to 1 July issued to any country with a record of human rights abuses.

Mr. Sainsbury: A number of representations have been received.

Miss Lestor: Is it not a fact that over 10,000 letters and a very large petition have already been sent complaining bitterly about the fact that one third of the countries that were at the 1986 exhibition were on Amnesty International's torture list, and that the weapons that they can buy can be used for internal repression and torture? Is it not about time that this vile trade was cleared up and the Government had some mechanism to prevent those people from attending?

Mr. Sainsbury: May I point out to the hon. Lady that it is individuals rather than companies that are asked. I assume from the wording of her question that the hon. Lady is entirely against trade in armaments. May I remind her that the successful sale of arms overseas by the British defence industry supports 100,000 jobs?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Hayward: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend is in Hanover for a meeting of the European Council.

Mr. Hayward: Can my right hon. Friend this afternoon express on behalf of the Government the disgust felt throughout the country at the attempt by terrorists not only to bomb the driver of a school bus in Northern Ireland but to kill the schoolchildren on that bus? Is it not a tragic irony that the children were then treated at the same hospital in Enniskillen as the people who were killed and injured in the Enniskillen bombing last year? Will my right hon. Friend send full reports of this bombing to Congressman Joe Kennedy in the United States?

Mr. Wakeham: This was a cowardly and disgusting act against an off-duty part-time member of the UDR in a situation in which many children and young people might have been killed. It indicates that there are no depths to which terrorists are not prepared to sink: first a remembrance service, then a charity fun-run, and now a school bus. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing horror, coupled with thankfulness that no one was killed and more people were not injured.

Mr. Kinnock: May I first join the right hon. Gentleman in strongly condemning this vile attack; indeed, no words could give full force to what decent, normal, ordinary people feel.
Just three months ago, in the Budget, the Chancellor predicted a balance of payments deficit of £4 billion for 1988. Using the same expert advice, what is the Government's prediction now?

Mr. Wakeham: First, I am glad to see the Leader of the Opposition safely in his place after his morning's activities.
The Chancellor told the House on 16 June that recent figures pointed to a larger deficit than forecast at Budget time. But, of course, current account deficit is the counterpart of capital inflows. These reflect a new-found confidence in the United Kingdom as a place to invest and are financing high investment by the private sector, which will boost future performance.

Mr. Kinnock: If everything is going so well, why are interest rates going up?

Mr. Wakeham: As the Chancellor said:
Short-term interest rates remain the essential instrument of monetary policy. Within a continuous and comprehensive assessment of monetary conditions, I will continue to set interest rates at the level necessary to ensure downward pressure on inflation."—[Official Report, 15 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 997.]
That is what he did today. A ½ per cent. increase reflects a further tightening of monetary conditions in line with moves earlier this month.

Mr. Kinnock: I recall the Chancellor and the Prime Minister saying that short-term interest rates were the essential lever of monetary policy. There have been seven changes in short-term interest rates in 12 weeks. Has the lever come off in the Chancellor's hand?

Mr. Wakeham: No. As the Leader of the Opposition will surely recognise, interest rates are an essential weapon in controlling monetary conditions. However, what is more to the point is that a 1 per cent. increase in wage costs is four times as damaging to industry as a 1 per cent. increase in interest costs.

Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Walker: Will my right hon. Friend attempt to organise visits to the annual conferences of the National Union of Mineworkers and the Scotch Whisky Association, because if he could he would find that the National Union of Mineworkers seems to support industrial unrest, and even the occasional killing of innocent people, while the Scotch Whisky Association employs 16,000 people, has exports worth £1 billion and contributes £1 billion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's budget? Does not that clear comparison show which is the more important to the nation?

Mr. Wakeham: I am sorry to give my hon. Friend a disappointing reply. My duties in this House will not allow me to attend either event. On the question of Scotch whisky, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the successful passage of his private Member's Bill. As for the NUM, I hope that whoever goes to its conference will find an opportunity to condemn the use of violence in industrial action.

Mr. Steel: Since the high value of the pound, aided by runaway easy credit, sucks in imports and worsens our balance of payments crisis, why, even today, does the Prime Minister continue to resist seeking exchange rate stability through joining the European monetary system? Will the Leader of the House explain the contrast between the Prime Minister's resistance to that and her tactless enthusiasm in the Canadian House of Commons last week for Canada to join an economic unit with its larger, single neighbour?

Mr. Wakeham: The control of inflation is paramount and the Government will not bail out excessive increases in domestic costs by allowing exchange rate depreciation. Restraint of industry's costs is in its own hands. The Prime Minister is discussing those issues in Hanover today. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman awaits her statement on Thursday.

Mr. Ian Taylor: In his discussions with the Prime Minister, will my right hon. Friend take note of the remarkable increase in charitable giving in this country in recent years, and especially the help that that provides in specific areas? Will he also convey to the Prime Minister the wide support for payroll-giving relief in the recent Budet? How does the Methodist Church think that we can behave otherwise than by that way of helping particular people? Will he condemn the Methodists' negative approach?

Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a remarkable record for a whole series of ways in which he has assisted charities in this country, and that is set to continue.

Mr. Nellist: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nellist: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to view last night's "World In Action" programme on her return, and especially to vet the activities of millionaire gangster Nicholas van Hoogstraten, who describes himself as "probably ruthless" and "probably violent" and who has been charged on several occasions with violence against tenants? In passing the Housing Bill last night, have not the Government given the green light to such ruthless gangsters to harass tenants further under the motto "Cry, 'Havoc' and let slip the ghosts of Rachman"?

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that no one in the House would support criminal activities by any landlord in any form. Bad landlord behaviour is the product of the Rent Acts, which held down rents and denied landlords a reasonable rate of return. The Housing Bill remedies that.

Dame Jill Knight: Has my right hon. Friend noted today the case of Dean Scott, who died so tragically as a result of parental neglect, although warnings were both given and received by the police and the local authorities? Did he note that the three local authorities concerned have said that no blame attaches to them and that they followed all existing procedures? Will my right hon. Friend use his considerable influence to ensure that existing procedures are altered?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot be expected to comment on the particular court case and the judgment that was reached, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will look carefully at all the lessons that are to be learnt from that distressing case and will see to it that any necessary changes are made and, certainly, that the proper procedures are brought to the attention of all those concerned.

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Morgan: When the Prime Minister returns from her latest overseas mission, will the Leader of the House ask the right hon. Lady, or the Mother of Parliament as she was mistakenly referred to in Ottawa last week—I am told that Canadian Opposition Members called her something different—urgently to knock together the heads of the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Wales for their further shilly-shallying over the second Severn crossing, as its further delay and the contradictions in Government policy over the matter are standing on the jugular vein of the Welsh economy?

Mr. Wakeham: As one who goes over the bridge quite frequently, I recognise that the increasing prosperity that the Government are bringing to south Wales is increasing the amount of traffic over the bridge. Both my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Transport have those matters in hand and will make an announcement in due course.

Mr. Goodlad: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Goodlad: Will my right hon. Friend, during the course of his busy day, find time to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the National Health Service, which takes place this weekend? Will he convey to all the people who work in it the hope that the scope and quality of the services offered will, over the next 40 years, increase by as much as they have over the past 40 years, the majority under Conservative Governments?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right to raise that matter. I am aware of the 40th anniversary of the National Health Service. It caused me to reflect that, for 26 years of that time, there has been a Conservative Government. We have consistently increased spending on the National Health Service, which now treats more patients with more new treatments than ever before. That contrasts with the record of the Labour party, which cut expenditure and nurses' pay and increased waiting lists.

Dr. Bray: If, as the Leader of the House has said, the root of the Chancellor's problem is that foreigners are so eager to thrust their money upon us, why has he increased interest rates?

Mr. Wakeham: I have already answered the question about interest rates and indicated that the movement of interest rates reflects a need to keep inflation under control, which is the paramount need of the economy at any time. The problem of people wishing to invest in this country would not be there if the hon. Gentleman's party were in government.

Mr. Baldry: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her oficial engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend explain the constitutional significance of the glorious revolution? Did it herald the dawn of a new era and a new realism?

Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of his question and for having drafted the reply.
The glorious revolution granted many freedoms that we enjoy today. It heralded the realism that the will of the people is paramount and cannot be subjugated to any group in our community. Those who find themselves in the thrall of certain trade union leaders would do well to remember that.

Mr. Terry Fields: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fields: Is the Leader of the House not appalled at the farce that passes for Prime Minister's Question Time? Two 15-minute periods a week are spent by the Prime Minister in what can only be described as an abuse of her office. Is it not time that the Prime Minister, who is ultimately responsible for the balance of trade deficit, the crisis in the Health Service, 4 million unemployed, despair, homelessness and poverty, was ordered to come to the House to give an account of her bankrupt stewardship to the nation?

Mr. Wakeham: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. I can think of better things to do with 15 minutes of my time every now and again. [Interruption.] To give the hon. Gentleman a serious answer, Prime Minister's Question Time is determined by the House, not by the Prime Minister. The Committee on Procedure has many times considered the way in which Prime Minister's Question Time is conducted. I know that my right hon. Friend would be willing to change the format if that is what the House wanted. I suspect that the present format is generally acceptable to most right hon. and hon. Members. If there is any criticism of it, it is of the quality of the questions that come from Opposition Members.

Council Estates (Wales)

Mr. Alun Michael: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Government's plan for the sale of council estates in Wales.
This is a specific matter for debate because separate guidelines have been produced for Wales and these have not been given the parliamentary scrutiny which, belatedly, was possible for the equivalent proposals for England. For thousands of people throughout Wales—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber quietly.

Mr. Michael: For thousands of people throughout Wales who will be affected by the proposals it is vital that the document should be discussed fully in the House. Ministers should explain it and answer questions on the practical effect that it will have on existing council tenants, on homeless people, on young people seeking a home for their start in life and on the growing number of elderly people who should be able to count on a comfortable and secure home in their remaining years.
It is a matter of urgency, because the document was not made available in the Vote Office in the usual way, and emerged in the Library only yesterday. There has been a transparent and successful attempt to evade debate on it during consideration of the Housing Bill, and a debate without further delay is the only way to restore accountability to the House by the Secretary of State for Wales.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, the pleas that were made for the document, along with the document on tenants' choice in Wales, which is still missing, believed to be hidden to be produced two or three weeks ago, so that they could be considered with the Housing Bill. The Welsh

Office stated in the press that there would be quite a different document for Wales and that Welsh Members wanted it published and debated as quickly as possible. Those whose homes are under threat have a right to expect the House to move as a matter of urgency to allow a debate that could clarify their future.
You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that council housing and the entire topic of social housing is a matter of serious public concern. Members have complained at the chaotic way in which the House has been engulfed in a flood of Government amendments to the Housing Bill. You have heard the angry complaints of hon. Members who are concerned about the housing needs of their constituents, who find it difficult to deal with the shifting sands of Government policy-maing long after consideration of the Housing Bill in Committee has been completed.
This is a specific matter of public concern which has been prevented, cynically and deliberately, from receiving an airing during debates on the Housing Bill. That is why the public interest demands that time be made available, as a matter of urgency, for the House to debate the Secretary of State's document, which pretends to show concern for social housing, but leaves unanswered so many important fundamental questions for the future of such housing in Wales that our failure to debate it would be an abrogation of our responsibility and would appear to condone the Secretary of State's failure to seek open discussion of his proposals.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Government's plan for the sale of council estates in Wales.
I listened with great care to the hon. Member. As he knows, my decision on Standing Order No. 20 applications is based on whether they meet the criteria laid down under the Standing Order. I regret that I do not consider that the matter that the hon. Member has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Question Time (Points of Order)

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Obviously I have not sat through as many Question Times as you have, but I think that you will concede that I frequently sit here at Question Time. Normally, you rightly rule out of order all points of order raised during Question Time, but today the hon. Member for Stockton. North (Mr. Cook) was allowed to put a point of order during Question Time. Are you creating a precedent? Is this a special arrangement with the hon. Member for Stockton, North? Will you explain how I can raise a point of order during Question Time in future?

Mr. Speaker: That is an unworthy comment for an hon. Member to make. The hon. Member well knows that if a matter arises that needs my immediate consideration it is always legitimate to raise a point of order. I hope that that will not happen too often during Question Time, because it would obviously delay the proceedings. This has always been the established rule. That is what I did today.

Mr. Holt: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept that I may be naive, thick and all the other things that you have suggested, but you must have immense foresight if you are able to rule that a point of order is in order before you have heard it. [Interruption.] Despite the rabble among the Opposition, I should like an honest appraisal of how you know that a point of order is in order before it is raised. Unless you do that, in future all of us should be able to raise our points of order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is right. Until a point of order is raised, it is impossible for the Chair to know whether it is in order. If today's point of order had not been one needing my immediate attention, I would have deferred it. [Interruption.] The House well understands the rules.

Police Act 1964 (Amendment)

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In the interests of the happy procedures of the House, I want to raise this matter before we embark upon the ten-minute Bill. I understand that the Bill requires police constables to give information about their membership of freemasonry. Freemasonry involves a direct pecuniary interest and advantage to any member of the freemasons. I hasten to say that I am not a freemason.
If hon. Members have a direct pecuniary interest in a matter, they are not allowed to vote on it. This does not involve general legislation. Because the constables covered by the Bill could be members of the lodges of which hon. Members are members, there will be a direct link. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will listen to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and conclude that hon. Members who are freemasons, but who are not, unfortunately, required to make a declaration to that effect, should stay out of the Division Lobby when the vote is taken, thereby avoiding any suspicion that they are voting for, or against, the Bill for their financial benefit.

Mr. Speaker: I think that we should wait to hear what is said in introducing the Bill. Like the hon. Member, I am not a mason. I understand that it is very difficult to find out who is a mason.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you will not take the advice offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (M r. Cryer), perhaps the hon. Members concerned will roll up their trouser legs when they go into the Lobbies.

Mr. Speaker: I shall watch most carefully.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I beg to move,
That leave he given to bring in a Bill to amend the form of declaration for a constable prescribed by the Police Act 1964.
The Bill is about freemasonry and the police, and would amend the service declaration that is made by a newly appointed police officer under schedule 2 to the Police Act 1964 by adding the words:
I shall abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of my duties or which is likely to give rise to the impression amongst members of the public that it may so interfere.
This amendment to the law, which I first canvassed m 1985, is designed specifically to stop practising freemasons from serving as police officers. The core of my objection is that the secretly sworn oath of allegiance between freemasons may conflict with the publicly declared loyalty of police officers to the community as a whole.
No condition can be allowed by which a police officer's loyalty can be divided. Freemasonry is a secretive organisation that encourages secret membership. Its members use secret methods of identification designed specifically so that non-members are left unaware of the connection between them. It is the duty of the police officer to enforce the law, to quote the service declaration, "without favour or affection". Police officers can succeed in that vital task only if they have the full confidence of the public that they are acting impartially.
Over the years, serious allegations have repeatedly been made that freemasons in the police force have received preferential treatment over appointments, promotion, disciplinary procedures and, most important, that they may not be impartially investigating criminal cases in which other freemasons are involved. Over many years my constituency mailbag, and recent public reaction to the case of Detective Chief Inspector Woollard have reflected widespread public anxiety over this issue.
Let me make it clear that my attack is not on the altruistic principles of freemasonry. It is often justifiably claimed that freemasons are responsible for many laudable charitable activities. I unreservedly accept and applaud that. However, I strongly believe that membership of that organisation in its present secretive form is inappropriate, not only for police officers, but also for the judiciary and for those responsible for public administration.
If freemasonry were to transform itself and shed its secrecy, exclusivity and oath of allegiance, I should have no objection to police officers being members. As things stand, however, police officers should not be freemasons, and those who are already members should resign either from the lodge or from the police force. It is one or the other; it cannot be both.
Over three years ago, Sir Kenneth Newman, the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan police—and at that time the most important police officer in the country—made exactly the point that I make now. In the book "Principles of Policing and Guidance for Professional Behaviour", he and his colleagues identified the
special dilemma of a police officer who is a freemason, and the conflict between his service declaration of impartiality and the sworn obligation to avoid any activity likely to interfere with impartiality or to give the impression that it may do so.
Sir Kenneth went on to say:
A freemason's oath holds inevitably the implication that loyalty to fellow freemasons may supersede any other loyalty. One who is already a freemason would also be wise to ponder from time to time whether he should continue as a freemason.
That view was shared by Sir Kenneth's successor and by at least five other chief constables, who immediately issued similar advice and guidance. In response, freemasonry closed ranks. The new and powerful lodge of St. James was forged, made up almost exclusively of Metropolitan police officers, some say as an act of defiance and a calculated insult to the commissioner. Its tentacles ran deep, with strong Conservative connections.
Sir Kenneth's concerns were prompted by a long history of problems involving freemasonry in the police force. One example that he must have had in mind was Operation Countryman, in the mid-1970s, when over 250 police officers were forced to resign and many faced criminal charges after investigations revealed that police membership of particular lodges formed the nucleus of a criminal conspiracy.
If revelations of wrongdoing and insidious corruption are not enough, what about the worries of the sergeant on the beat passed over for promotion for a less experienced or less able but better connected colleague, the disciplinary complaint against an official inexplicably overlooked, or the drunken driver who is not breathalysed?
Today, masonic penetration of the police force appears to be greater than ever. A survey in 1981 revealed that an estimated 33 out of 50 chief constables were freemasons. It

has been alleged that 50 per cent. of the active membership of the Police Federation are freemasons. The latest authoritative study suggests that as many as one in five of all policemen are masons. The author of that study concluded:
An astonishing number of policemen are freemasons—out of all proportion with the population as a whole.
I am told that in London alone at least four lodges are made up entirely of freemason policemen. Just what are they doing?
That brings me to the case of Detective Chief Inspector Brian Woollard. One must support his campaign against the unacceptable influence of freemasonry within the Metropolitan police. Woollard's career has clearly been ruined as a result of his diligent investigation of criminal conspiracy involving freemasonry—the career of a man with an outstanding record and picked out for high command. Woollard had received seven commendations. He had served at Downing street, at Buckingham palace, with the anti-terrorist squad, and with the elite public sector corruption squad. He had even served as personal protection officer to a former Home Secretary. He was a high flyer. The mistake that he made was to question a senior DPP official who showed an unprecedented interest in his case. Of course, that official turned out to be a freemason.
The authorities have not altogether written off the case. I understand that senior officers have been working on a report that shows that a high proportion of police above the rank of inspector are freemasons. There is a particularly strong concentration in certain CID squads, in personnel and in management departments generally. Even the Police Foundation, an advisory body to the Government, has commented on freemasons' "obsession with secrecy".
Regrettably, the problem is a national one and reaches as far as my constituency in Cumbria. I received a letter from a local police officer who said:
You are quite correct when you say that policemen feel that impartiality is not always as it should be, but it could never be proved, as any example cited would obviously be met with an immediate denial from those in authority.
I put those concerns to the then chief constable of Cumbria, Barry Price, and asked him to issue guidance of the sort recommended by Sir Kenneth Newman. I received the curt reply, "I won't."
Another policeman told me that Cumbria police force was riddled with freemasonry and that non-masons were often heard privately to complain. I should add that former Chief Constable Price was later reported to me to be a freemason. I should have realised earlier.
The parliamentary questions that I tabled in 1985 resulted in a vast mailbag. Commander Higham, grand secretary of the United Grand lodge of England and Wales, attempted to reassure me with a masterful euphemism. He said that his was not a secret organisation, but rather had
a respectable inclination to privacy.
When I tried to find out who or how many he represented, I was told that the information was not secret but "private".
Freemasonry is plagued with contradictions. It claims to be open to all, yet it bars women. It makes high moral claims, yet it offends the Church. It contains some of the most powerful and respected people in the land, yet subjects them to bizarre ritual that invites ridicule.
I argue that freemasons should not serve as police officers and that police officers should sever their links with their lodges. Their inter-tribal oath of loyalty is utterly incompatible with the duty to serve the whole community impartially. The secrecy of the organisation makes it impossible to check whether impartiality might be at risk in a particular case.
I submit that the police force is considerably damaged by its links with freemasonry. Good policemen are embarrassed. We all recognise that the police depend on the full co-operation of the public in solving crime. That co-operation depends in turn on trust and a belief in their impartiality. Undermine that trust, and one undermines the fight against crime. The police force is an important institution pledged to uphold the principles of an open, free and democratic society. We all support it. It is unhealthy that large numbers of its officers should be involved in an organisation whose practices are so entirely out of keeping with those principles.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member have leave to bring in his Bill?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: I shall put the Question again. Hon. Members must follow their voices. The Question is, That the hon. Member have leave to bring in his Bill.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):

The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 16.

Division No. 384]
[3.49 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Dixon, Don


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dobson, Frank


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Doran, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Eastham, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Battle, John
Fatchett, Derek


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Blair, Tony
Fisher, Mark


Blunkett, David
Flannery, Martin


Boateng, Paul
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Boyes, Roland
Foster, Derek


Bradley, Keith
Fyfe, Maria


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Galloway, George


Caborn, Richard
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Callaghan, Jim
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Canavan, Dennis
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grocott, Bruce


Clay, Bob
Haynes, Frank


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Heffer, Eric S.


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Doug


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Corbett, Robin
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cryer, Bob
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howells, Geraint


Dalyell. Tam
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)





Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kennedy, Charles
Quin, Ms Joyce


Leighton, Ron
Reid, Dr John


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Richardson, Jo


Lewis, Terry
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Livingstone, Ken
Rogers, Allan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Loyden, Eddie
Short, Clare


McAllion, John
Skinner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum A.
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McFall, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McKelvey, William
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McTaggart, Bob
Steinberg, Gerry


Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Martlew, Eric
Turner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Vaz, Keith


Michael, Alun
Wall, Pat


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wareing, Robert N.


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wigley, Dafydd


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Morley, Elliott
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Winnick, David


Mullin, Chris
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Nellist, Dave
Worthington, Tony


O'Neill, Martin



Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patchett, Terry
Mr. Brian Sedgemore and


Pendry, Tom
Mr. Nicholas Brown.


Pike, Peter L.





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Janman, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Beggs, Roy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Bendall, Vivian
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Woodcock, Mike


Farr, Sir John



Fearn, Ronald
Tellers for the Noes:


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mr. Alan Meale and


Forth, Eric
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Nicholas Brown, Mr. Derek Fatchett, Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. Brian Sedgemore and Mrs. Ann Clwyd.

POLICE ACT 1964 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours accordingly presented a Bill to amend the form of declaration for a constable prescribed by the Police Act 1964: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 July and to be printed. [Bill 184.]

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the ten-minute Bill presented so ably by my hon. Friend for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has been carried by such a substantial majority, you might be reflecting on why there was such a small number of Members opposed to it. Has it been reported to you that there seemed to be a masonic picket at the entrance to the No Lobby? Will you confirm that the Select Committee on Members' Interest is considering a request from me that Members who are masons should be required to declare their masonic membership in the Register of Members' Interests?
Lastly, will you confirm that attempts by me to table questions and a motion asking the Prime Minister to confirm that she is a member of the Lodge of the Eastern Star, which she is rumoured to have joined in 1975, have


been blocked on the grounds that they would cause annoyance? As the excellent ten-minute Bill has been carried requiring the police to declare masonic membership, it is high time that such a declaration was required of Members of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: We have a busy day ahead of us. I do not know anything about the pickets. I understand that normally the Whips act as pickets on an ordinary division, but I do not believe that they are on for a ten-minute Bill. I have no knowledge of the other matters the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall not take up much of your time, but the pickets—there were more than six of them—were composed exclusively of Conservative Members, including members of the Whips Office. Therefore, would it be fair to draw the conclusion that the House of Commons freemason's lodge is centred in the Conservative party?

Mr. Speaker: I draw no conclusions at all.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, & c.

Ordered,
That the draft Harbour Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp; c.
That the draft Environmental Assessment (Afforestation) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp; c.
That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 1) Order 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 1065) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp; c.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister is unable to answer my question now I hope that we shall have some clarification from the Government later in our proceedings.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when we last discussed the Bill on 16 June, we dealt with new clause 80, which relates to DNA testing in Northern Ireland. At that time, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office gave certain assurances about the new clause. On the basis of those assurances, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) accepted that the new clause should be added to the Bill, and Ministers will recall that we did not divide the House on that matter.
An article has now been published in the New Scientist that disputes the information given by the Minister of State. It demonstrates that the tests that the Minister suggested would be carried out to obtain a mouth swab would not be sufficient to obtain the necessary information, and that an intimate sample would be required. I seek an assurance from the Minister of State that, if intimate samples are required, they will be covered by other provisions in the Bill.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to clarify the point that the hon. Lady has raised—I hope to her satisfaction.
When my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office moved the new clause on 16 June, he said that the scientific procedures were satisfactory regarding the taking of mouth swab samples. The article in the New Scientist does not lead the Government to change their views in any way at all.

Mrs. Taylor: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that the matter could best be clarified on Third Reading.

New Clause 64

RIGHT OF ANONYMITY TO ALL VICTIMS OF AND DEFENDANTS IN SEXUAL OFFENCES CASES

'(1) The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 shall be amended as follows.

(2) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (1) of section 4 (Anonymity of complainants in rape etc. cases)—
(1) Except as authorised by a direction of this section—

(a) After an allegation that a person has been the victim of an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967 has been made by the person or by any other person neither the person's name nor his address nor a still or moving picture of him shall during his lifetime—



(i) Be published in England and Wales in a written publication available to the public; or
(ii) Be broadcast or included in a cable programme in England and Wales.
if that is likely to lead members of the public to identify him as an alleged victim of such an offence; and
(b) After a person is accused of such an offence no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify a person as the complainant in relation to that accusation shall during his lifetime—

(i) Be published in England and Wales in a written publication available to the public; or
(ii) Be broadcast or included in a cable programme in England and Wales,
but nothing in this subsection prohibits the publication or broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme of matters consisting only of a report of criminal proceedings other than proceedings at or intended to lead to, or on an Appeal arising out of, a trial at which the accused is charged with the offence.

(1A) In subsection (1) above 'picture' includes a likeness however produced.".

(3) In subsection (2) and subsection (4) and subsection (7) of that section for the words "a rape offence" there shall be substituted the words "an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967".

(4) In subsection (3) of that section—

(a) the words "before the Crown Court at which a person is charged with a rape offence" and "relating to the complainant" shall cease to have effect; and
(b) for the words "an acquittal of a defendant at" there shall be substituted the words "the outcome of".
(5) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (5) of that section—

"(5A) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (5) of this section in respect of the publication or broadcast of any matter or the inclusion of any matter in a cable programme, it shall be a defence, subject to subsection (5B) below, to prove that the publication, broadcast or cable programme in which the matter appeared was one in respect of which the person had given written consent to the appearance of matter of that description.
(5B) Written consent is not a defence if it is proved that any person interfered unreasonably with the person's peace of comfort with intent to obtain the consent."
(6) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (6) of that section—

"(1) For the purposes of this Section 'an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967' means any of the following, namely, any offence specified in these Acts, any attempt to commit any offence specified in these Acts, aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring any offence or an attempt to commit any offence specified in these Acts, incitements to commit any offence specified in these Acts, conspiracy to commit any offence specified in these Acts and burglary with intent to commit any offence specified in these Acts.
(2) For the purposes of this Section a person is accused of an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967; if

(a) An information is laid alleging that he has committed such an offence; or
(b) He appears before a Court charged with such an offence, or
(c) A Court before which he is appearing commits him for trial on a new charge alleging such an offence; or
(d) A bill of indictment charging him with such an offence is preferred before a court in which he may lawfully be indicted for the offence,

and references in this section and section 7(5) of this Act to an accusation alleging such an offence shall be construed accordingly; and in this section—
'a broadcast' means a broadcast by wireless telegraphy of sounds or visual images intended for general reception, and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly;
'complainant', in relation to a person accused of such an offence or an accusation alleging such an offence, means the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed; and
'written publication' includes a film, a sound track and any other record in permanent form about but does not include an Indictment or other documents prepared for use in particular legal proceedings.".
(7) In section 6 (Anonymity of defendants in rape etc. cases)—

(a) Wherever the words "a rape offence" appear in that section there shall be substituted the words "an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967".
(b) In subsection (1) of that section, after the words "broadcast" there shall be added the words "or included in a cable programme" and after the words "at a trial before the Crown Court" shall be added the words "or the Magistrates Court".
(c) In subsection (6) of that section after the words "subsections (5) to (7) of section 4 of this Act" shall be added the words "as amended by section 150 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988".
(d) In subsection (4)(a) of that section after the words "before the Crown Court" shall be added the words "or the Magistrates Court".—[Mr. Corbett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 65—Right of anonymity to all victims of sexual offences—

`(1) The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 shall be amended as follows.,
(2) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (1) of section 4 (Anonymity of complainants in rape etc. cases)—

"(1) Except as authorised by a direction of this section—

(a) After an allegation that a person has been the victim of an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967 has been made by the person or by any other person neither the person's name nor his address nor a still or moving picture of him shall during his life time—

(i) Be published in England and Wales in a written publication available to the public; or
(ii) Be broadcast or included in a cable programme in England and Wales,
if that is likely to lead members of the public to identify him as an alleged victim of such an offence; and
(b) After a person is accused of such an offence no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify a person as the complainant in relation to that accusation shall during his lifetime—

(i) Be published in England and Wales in a written publication available to the public; or
(ii) Be broadcast or included in a cable programme in England and Wales,
but nothing in this subsection prohibits the publication or broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme of matters consisting only of a report of criminal proceedings other than


proceedings at or intended to lead to, or on an Appeal arising out of, a trial at which the accused is charged with the offence.
(1A) In subsection (1) above 'picture' includes a likeness however produced.".
(3) In subsection (2) and subsection (4) and subsection (7) of that section for the words "a rape offence" there shall be substituted the words "an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967".
(4) In subsection (3) of that section—

(a) the words "before the Crown Court at which a person is charged with a rape offence" and "relating to the complainant" shall cease to have effect; and
(b) for the words "an acquittal of a defendant at" there shall be substituted the words "the outcome or'.
(5) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (5) of that section—

"(5A) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (5) of this section in respect of the publication or broadcast of any matter or the inclusion of any matter in a cable programme, it shall be a defence, subject to subsection (5B) below, to prove that the publication, broadcast or cable programme in which the matter appeared was one in respect of which the person had given written consent to the appearance of matter to that description.
(5B) Written consent is not a defence if it is proved that any person interfered unreasonably with the person's peace or comfort with intent to obtain the consent."
(6) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (6) of that section—

"(1) for the purposes of this Section 'an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967 means any of the following, namely, an offence specified in these Acts, any attempt to commit any offence specified in these Acts, aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring any offence or an attempt to commit any offence specified in these Acts, incitements to commit any offence specified in these Acts, conspiracy to commit any offence specified in these Acts and burglary with intent to commit any offence specified in these Acts.
(2) for the purposes of this Section a person is accused of an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967; if

(a) An information is laid alleging that he has committed such an offence; or
(b) He appears before a Court charged with such an offence, or
(c) A Court before which he is appearing commits him for trial on a new charge alleging such an offence; or
(d) A bill of indictment charging him with such an offence is preferred before a court in which he may lawfully be indicted for the offence,
and references in this section and section 7(5) of this Act to an accusation alleging such an offence shall be construed accordingly; and in this section—
'a broadcast' means a broadcast by wireless telegraphy of sounds or visual images intended for general reception, and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly;
`complainant', in relation to a person accused of such an offence or an accusation alleging such an offence, means the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed; and
`written publication' includes a film, a sound track and any other record in permanent form about but does not include an indictment or other documents prepared for use in particular legal proceedings.".
(7) In section 6 (Anonymity of defendants in rape etc cases)—


(a) In subsection (1) of that section after the words "broadcast" there shall be added the words "or included in a cable programme".
(b) In subsection (6) of that section after the words "subsections (5) to (7) of section 4 of this Act" shall be added the words "as amended by section 150 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988".'.

Amendment No. 209, in clause 150, in page 96, line 3, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
(5) In section 6 (Anonymity of defendants in rape etc cases)—

(a) In subsection (1) of that section after the word "broadcast" there shall be added the words "or included in a cable programme".
(b) In subsection (6) of that section after the words "subsections (5) to (7) of section 4 of this Act" shall be added the words "as amended by section 150 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988".'.

Mr. Corbett: May I remind the House that I was the author of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, which first provided anonymity for rape victims from the moment that an information was laid or a charge was made, and for defendants unless convicted. The House will no doubt recall that the Act was built upon a report by Mrs. Justice Heilbron.
Two issues are involved here. The first is that of how better to shield rape victims from sensation-seeking newspapers while ensuring that the defendant has a fair trial. Rape trials—or, indeed, any others—are in no way concerned with helping newspaper publishers, on the back of salacious reporting, to add to their circulations. We are concerned with the proper administration of the law.
Rape is perhaps the vilest crime that can be committed against women. That is why the 1976 Act extended extra and special protection by means of anonymity and restricting the amount of sexual mud-slinging that had undoubtedly taken place in previous rape trials. Parliament felt it right to take those steps.
I unreservedly congratulate the Government on going further with this Bill, because anonymity will now start from the moment when an allegation of rape has been made by a woman or any other person. It must be acknowledged that that gives the earliest possible protection to rape victims. It is a wide and welcome extra protection, which is needed to reassure women. The House may recall how, in 1986, the sewer Sun ran a certain obscene front-page photograph of what was alleged to be a rape victim. Unhappily, when I questioned the Attorney-General about the chances of prosecution, he told me that the way in which the 1976 Act was drawn did not legally prevent that sort of publication. That was extremely regrettable and it underlined the need, to which I am glad the Government have responded, to make the anonymity provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act come into play earlier.
We should be clear what the clause does for rape victims. It dates the protection of anonymity from the moment when a woman or any other person makes an allegation of rape. That is wholly justified, but it is a unique provision. I can think of no other circumstances in which a complainant would get such treatment before possible court proceedings. In no way do I object to that; indeed, I commend it. However, if it is right to make this important exception for women who allege rape, it must be right to extend a similar protection to the defendant man.
Twelve years ago, when the 1976 Act was being debated, what won the argument and persuaded the House was the simple proposition that both complainant woman


and defendant man in a rape trial should have identical treatment before the court as far as possible. That legal exception was designed to recognise the seriousness of a rape charge for the complainant and the defendant. It was my firm belief then, and it remains so now, that a man charged with rape who is subsequently found not guilty is never wholly free of the stigma in his community, among those with whom he works or the people who are responsible for his career. That follows from the special nature of the offence.
There is a more specific and compelling reason for maintaining anonymity for the defendant unless he is convicted. It has more to do with the victim than with the defendant. A major survey in Woman's Own in 1986, in which 25,000 women took part, showed that 55 per cent. of all rape victims knew their attacker. Most rapists were shown to be boy friends or former husbands or someone known to the woman. I ask the House and the Minister to reflect on those figures. One third of all rapes took place in the victim's home. Even in the one in eight rapes in which the attacker was unknown, the incident took place in the woman's home.
These figures provide a warning. If the rape victim knows her attacker in most cases, so do many other people. Enabling the defendant to be named will, in most cases, almost automatically indentify the rape victim, which in turn will undo the extra protection that the Bill seeks to give victims.
4.15 pm
It is sometimes argued that anonymity for the man suspected of rape can get in the way of police trying to find a suspect who is also wanted in connection with other serious criminal offences. That claim is nonsense. I acknowledge that in some circumstances—for example, the horrific M50 murder hunt—the use of indentikit drawings or photographs can help in tracing a suspect, but if that needs to be done the police can say that the man they are looking for is wanted in connection with serious criminal offences—without detailing them. In passing, I am a mite surprised that there has been no argument before the courts, in cases in which these "wanted" posters have been issued, by defence counsel contesting that matters of identification have been prejudged by the publication of drawings or photographs to such an extent that it is difficult for the client to get a fair trial.
There is not the slightest evidence—although there may be hearsay—that the provisions of the 1976 Act in respect of defendant men have in any way inhibited the police. So I do not believe the case is made. As I have said, the main argument for retaining this matching anonymity is to protect that of the victim. More than 55 per cent. of rape victims know their attacker. Those figures from Woman's Own tell us more than any single opinion.
The House must not risk putting rape victims in the real danger of being accidentally indentified through the naming of defendant men. At the very least, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the Government's proposal to remove anonymity for the defendant man will run the risk, if no more than that, of harming the victim and of perhaps deterring even more women from reporting rape to the police. The Woman's Own survey showed that three out of every four women keep quiet about rape because they feel they will not be believed. If the Government's proposal becomes law, it will force even

more women to keep quiet, which in turn will mean even more rapists walking free to strike again, when they should be behind bars.

Mr. Tony Baldry: All hon. Members are united in abhorrence of the offence of rape. Almost all will sympathise with the sentiments behind the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). However, I hope that on reflection he will consider that there are a number of pitfalls in what he proposes.
For the reasons that the hon. Member for Erdington outlined, there have, over a period, been good causes for Parliament and the courts seeking to protect victims in rape offences. History has shown that the vicitims of rape have often felt afraid that, however, innocent they are and however much they are the violated party, there is always the danger of a stigma attaching to them if they are dragged into the courts. That is why Parliament has properly given them anonymity from the moment when they make a complaint. However, it would be dangerous to make the logical jump and give anonymity to the defendant, for the following reasons.
We have an open system of justice, in which magistrates courts must decide whether there is a prima facie case against a defendant. As soon as the courts have found that there is, the defendant is named and the fact is promulgated that the defendant will be tried by a magistrates court or, in the case of rape, committed for Crown court trial. That is a public and open system of justice, in which everyone knows what is happening.
Inevitably, in a system of justice in which some people are found not guilty after trial, they may well consider that their names have been besmirched for ever more. That price must be paid in any system of justice, however hard one tries to perfect it. There is always a danger that a wholly innocent party may be brought before the courts and found not gulity, but his reputation may suffer irreparably ever after. But the reputations of the middle-aged woman who is accused of shoplifting or the company director who is accused of tax evasion are just as much at risk as the reputation of the man accused of rape.
The hon. Member for Erdington said that many rape victims know their attackers, and that therefore they should be given added protection. The same argument could be made in many murder cases. Many murders occur in the home, often as a result of grievous bodily harm going wrong. Does one then say that those who are accused of murder should be granted anonymity? If we did that, we should be moving from an open system of justice to a system full of exceptions and caveats.
Throughout this century we have had a public system of justice, with good checks and balances between the complainant and the defendant. The system works. 'The only exception to that should be, for the reasons stated, that complainants in rape cases should receive anonymity. But there is no need to extend anonymity to defendants in rape cases. To do so would he to set a dangerous precedent that could lead to many other ramifications in our system of criminal justice. All we need to ensure is similar treatment for every defendant. We must ensure that every defendant in every court case is treated the same, and we should not make exceptions for some defendants that are not available to others.

Mr. Tony Worthington: This matter was fully debated in Committee, and in the intervening months I have thought deeply about it. I remain convinced that it is right to make an exception in the case of defendants in rape cases.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) made powerful speeches about the consequences to defendants of allegations that are made against them. My hon. Friend mentioned the case of the mother of an accused person whose life was destroyed by the accusation, and the hon. Member for Thanet, South told us about a suicide that occurred after a false allegation of rape.
I was pleased to hear the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) today. He made a point that I made in Committee, although I did not have the information to substantiate it at the time. As the Woman's Own survey showed, there is little point in protecting the victim of the alleged rape if the name of the accused is published. That survey showed that 55 per cent. of rape victims know their attackers. In smaller communities especially, to name the accused would be to name the victim.
Some hon. Members have said that the new clause goes down a dangerous road, and in Committee the Minister said that if we gave anonymity to defendants in rape cases we would have to consider doing the same in other cases. But we should examine the extension of anonymity to all defendants. I accept the point about our open system of justice, but the primary rule is that one is innocent until proven guilty. We should take account of the fact that people who have been publicly accused of offences never shake off that accusation. It is not true to say that a company director accused of fraud or a middle-aged women accused of shoplifting need the same protection as a rape victim. No one could regard those offences as being similar to rape. A powerful case has been made for saying that rape carries a unique stigma and that we must protect the victims of that offence. But if the stigma exists for the victim, it also exists for the alleged perpetrator, and that is why I support the new clause.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I oppose the new clause. I am probably one of the few Members of Parliament who has defended and prosecuted people charged with rape. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) about the openness of justice. It is an important point that we must consider. Once we start to protect the identity of some accused people, we are in danger of extending it to others. There is no sound reason why a man accused of rape should have the protection of anonymity while those who are accused of robbery, murder, manslaughter or causing death by reckless driving do not enjoy that protection. Once we open the door, we shall have opened the floodgates to a series of extensions of the rule, which would not be in the interests of open justice.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hind: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak later. As he knows, normally I would give way to him.
Some hon. Members have suggested that the stigma of being accused of rape is carried by the defendant for the

rest of his life. Of course it is, but whatever the type of offence, the stigma is carried by people accused in every criminal case. There are more serious offences than rape.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: It takes a man to say that.

Mr. Hind: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but there are cases of murder, robbery and the most atrocious acts of violence. I accept that rape is terrible, but I do not understand why the man accused of rape should have his identity concealed by the courts.
Hon. Members said that it is a terrible thing for relatives. From my experience, I know that the most difficult thing for a man charged with a sexual offence or any other serious offence is to tell his mother or wife about it. That is the hardest audience with which he must deal. It is easier to tell one's counsel or admit it in court than to confess to one's loved ones.
Over five years ago, I represented a 17-year-old charged with the attempted rape of an 81-year-old woman. I advised him that, on the evidence, he had no choice but to plead guilty. He said to me, "The difficult thing is to tell his mother." I brought his mother into the cell, he told her that he was guilty and he went into court and pleaded guilty. I saw his mother two years later, following her son's release, and she insisted on disbelieving that her son could have committed such an offence. The relatives of an accused person are in a unique position. Many do not want to believe that their loved ones have been involved in offences, and that applies to every type of offence.
4.30 pm
The general public will stand behind Conservative Members in opposing the new clause because they think it right that the identity of the accused should be brought to their notice.
Rape is not a sexual offence. That mistake is made over and over again. It is not purely sexually motivated. Its root is to dominate the woman, and it is more connected with violence. It is a most horrible offence, but often the main motivation is to dominate or possess a woman. The sexual attack is a side issue; the main issue is physical aggression and domination. As the defendant's identity is put before the public in similar horrible offences, I do not understand why defendants should be protected in rape cases.
I fully endorse the point that was made in Committee about protecting victims. For many years I have fought to ensure that victims are protected, and I am glad to note that provisions relating to that are in the Bill. I advise Opposition Members to turn the clock back to when defendants were protected and were anonymous and consider the reasons why the law was changed to remove that anonymity. Those reasons are as valid today as they were then.

Mr. Bermingham: I did not intend to speak to the new clause until the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) failed to give way to me.
The hon. Member has not read the new clause. He has avoided the central issue of the problem, which, to a large extent, lies with the sensationalising by the press of any major crime.

Mr. Hind: indicated assent.

Mr. Bermingham: I see the hon. Gentleman nodding in agreement. Even before charge, details are given of the person detained in custody. Details of the offence are


given, and the press is awash with the gory details of the allegation. I often wonder how the accused in such sensational cases receives a fair trial.
Rape is a bestial crime if ever there was one. I disagree with the hon. Member for Lancashire, West that it has no sexual basis; it is well proven that it has. What will happen in rape cases? Often they are the most sensational and give rise to front-page headlines. What will happen to the families of an accused who is subsequently acquitted? All the damage will have been done.
Many rapes occur between family or friends—between people who know each other. By naming the defendant before the trial, one effectively names the victim, thus defeating the object of the exercise.
Sometimes, cant and dogma take over our law. I beg the Minister to think back to what was said in Committee. Over the past few days there have been several sensational cases, unconnected with rape, in which people have been named before charge as being detained. Until we find some way of protecting people accused of serious criminal offences before trial, we must keep what few shields we have left. The new clause is designed to strengthen those shields until the time comes when nobody is named before charge—at which time the screens come down on reporting restrictions—so that everybody receives a trial by court and evidence, not by newspaper and innuendo.

Mr. John Patten: This has been an excellent debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on the way in which he introduced the new clause.
Anonymity for rape victims is widely supported. Clause 150 rightly extends the anonymity given to rape victims to the point at which an allegation is made rather than when a man is charged. The hon. Member for Erdington was good enough to say that that is a good move. It has received all-party support and is a matter of bipartisan consent. The question whether a defendant should be granted anonymity should be considered in isolation. Although hon. Members may not entirely agree, this is a matter not of party politics but of judgment.
Why are victims in rape cases granted anonymity? The Heilbron committee, which reported in 1985, found that the public knowledge of rape was a severe deterrent, leading victims not to report offences. The hon. Member for Erdington gave the full history of that Committee's deliberations and how they led to his private Member's Bill—the hon. Gentleman has achieved more than I ever have in the House—so it would be otiose to repeat the detail he gave.
The key question is, why should suspected rapists but not other suspected criminals enjoy anonymity? Hon. Members have addressed themselves entirely to that point. Judgments have been made on either side of the argument. Surely those accused of murder are under the same pressure as those accused of rape. Murder is the most terrible of all crimes, and those accused of murder are subject to acute public scrutiny, yet I have never heard an hon. Member suggest that suspected murderers should not be named.

Mr. Bermingham: In the case of a suspected murderer, the victim's identity is known, so no further harm can be done to the victim. That distinguishes it from a rape case, in which the object is to keep the victim's identity secret so that society can attempt to protect and cosset her.

Mr. Patten: We are not doing anything that would reveal the alleged victim's identity. It may be that the murder victim's name is indeed known. Not everyone, however, accused of murder is found guilty. Those who are found not guilty can suffer the most terrible damage because of the old argument that there is no smoke without fire.
The 15th report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which was published in 1984, says:
Rape is but one of many offences where a defendant who is acquitted may nevertheless suffer damage to his reputation.
That must be true. It is not applicable only to sexual offences. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) put is finger on the problem when he said that a business man or a company director who was wrongly accused of fraud, or a vicar wrongly accused of shoplifting, could be in much the same difficulty.
The hon. Member for Erdington says that the difference in a rape case is that the victim is not named—that point was also made by the hon. Member for St. Helen's, South (Mr. Bermingham)—so she can make her accusation with impunity. But we must remember that victims are not named in other areas of the criminal law. The victim of blackmail is not named. Such people are treated specially. The same applies to child victims—the subject of a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) on the previous occasion that we considered the Bill on Report. But alleged blackmailers and alleged offenders against children do not benefit from anonymity. Their names are known. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) was right in the point that he made about that.
Let me set at rest the mind of the hon. Member for Erdington. He feared that, should the identification of an assailant become law, that could often lead to the identification of the victim. That is not so. If he looks at clause 150, he will see that it prohibits the publication of any information that is likely to lead to the identification of the victim. Therefore, no newspaper could name the alleged assailant and say that he was the victim's boy friend or next-door neighbour, because that would indirectly identify the victim.
The terms of the new clause illustrate the difficulty of knowing where to draw the line if we once cease to regard rape as unique for these purposes. The new clauses would include all offences under the Sexual Offences Acts of 1956 and 1967, and that would bring specifically into the provision not only offences for which we have all recognised that a good case could be made, even if we did not agree across the Floor of the House about it— for example, indecent assault—but others for which anonymity provisions, especially for the defendant, seem to be highly inappropriate, to put it mildly. For example, that would include those people accused of letting premises for a brothel, living on the earnings of prostitution, controlling a prostitute, solicitation by a man, homosexual acts in public, and so on. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would really want to include all those potential offences. I would not wish to do so.
There is a balance to be struck between, on the one hand, encouraging victims to report offences and relieving them of their ordeal as much as possible, and, on the other hand, what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury referred to as the principle of open justice.
I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Erdington. He played a major role in the 1976 legislation, and we should all listen carefully to what he has to say. The case for imposing reporting restrictions for the benefit of rape victims is overwhelming, but in giving protection against the interests of open justice, I find the balance tipping in the other direction.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mt. Corbett), not for the first time, is seeking to achieve, but there is another practical argument that the Minister might have adduced. Where some horrendous offence has taken place, whether rape or any other, the police are required to search for the potential assailant. To do so they must give wide publicity. I wish to make no comment on matters that may be coming before the courts shortly, but the House will know that identikit pictures need to be made widely available. They will identify. To that extent, it is impracticable to refuse to identify the potential accused.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. We must do nothing that inhibits the work of the police in tracking down alleged rapists and bringing them to whatever justice the courts bring to bear on them.
I am sorry to part company with the hon. Member for Erdington but, on a matter of judgment, not on a partisan matter or a party political matter, I simply do not agree with him, and I cannot advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clauses.

Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with this, although he clearly arrives at a different conclusion, on what I accept is a matter of judgment. The Minister and the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) tried to liken a defendant in a rape trial to a defendant in a manslaughter or a murder trial or to a defendant in a case of causing death by reckless driving. It is a blinding glimpse of the obvious, but I repeat that in each of those instances the victim is dead, known and usually named. Therefore, that comparison does not stand up.
I disagree with much of what the hon. Member for Lancashire, West said. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) shouted across to him that one of his remarks could only have been made by a man. We should treat that comment with the deepest respect, because as much as we as men try to imagine how rape victims feel, we cannot do so because we are not women. We can imagine it, but I am trying to establish the case that the House should recognise that for a woman rape is a vile offence, the consequences of which last many women throughout the rest of their lives. Indeed, I know a woman who was raped 40 or 50 years ago, but was prevented from reporting it, who still bears the marks of that assault. I am sure that she is by no means alone in that.
Two hon. Members have made the general point that it would be wrong for defendants to have such protection from the courts. Under the present legislation, defendants do not have that protection from the courts, if that is the way to look at it, because where a man is charged with rape and found guilty he is named. But we are not talking about

protecting defendants from the courts; as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said, we are talking about protecting defendants from trial by radio, newspaper and television. No more is that true than in rape trials, when salaciousness is played up in a bid to sell extra copies of newspapers.
I say again that that has nothing to do with the administration of justice or with helping the sales of newspapers. Indeed, one of the complaints that I have made, as a former pencil journalist, is that the coverage of our courts by the press is now so random that any claim that it once had to represent the public in order that justice could be seen to be done has long since gone out of the window. We know that from shoplifting cases. Only someone who is famous or married to someone famous will be reported. Therefore, the press does not have a leg to stand on.
I understand what the Minister is saying. Yes, defendants in rape cases are being treated differently. I have tried to persuade the House why they should be treated differently. Whether or not newspapers can, through the naming of the defendant, name the victim—some would be pushed to do so—is not really the point. The point is that, if 55 per cent. of rape victims know their attacker, as the Woman's Own survey showed, within the small communities in streets, towns and villages, around pubs and clubs and in the work place, if the defendant is named, that will automatically undo the extra protection that the Bill rightly offers to rape victims. None of us can want that.
I do not want to rehearse the arguments, because all hon. Members will be familiar with them, but one of the purposes of both provisions of the 1976 Act was to ensure anonymity for the victim and reduce the amount of sexual mud-slinging that went on in cross-examination because it was discovered that the woman had had an illegitimate child. One hon. Member said in as many words at one stage that a woman like that could not be raped.
Uniquely in rape cases—I think that this has to be and is sustainable—it is the complainant woman who feels very much on trial. Very often, because of the nature of the offence, it is a one-to-one thing; in essence, it is the woman's word against that of the man. That was why it was so important to try to narrow and limit the scope of the questions that could be asked about previous sexual experience, for example.
At the very least, there is a risk that, through naming the defendant, it will be easier for people to identify the complainant rape victim. It must be so, on the basis of the Woman's Own survey. I hope it is not so, but the effect of that will deter even more women from going to the police and making allegations of rape. That is going in completely the opposite direction from the extra protections which the Government and the Committee have written into the Bill for the victim.
I am sorry that this has to become a matter for the Division Lobbies, but we shall pursue it to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:

The House proceeded to a Division:

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Hon. Members may like to know that there is doubt about the functioning of the digital clock, which I believe has been wrong by about two minutes. Therefore, the Division doors will be open for another two minutes.

The House having divided: Ayes 150, Noes 274.

Division No. 385]
[4.51 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Alton, David
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Anderson, Donald
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Janner, Greville


Armstrong, Hilary
John, Brynmor


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Ashton, Joe
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Kennedy, Charles


Battle, John
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Bell, Stuart
Leadbitter, Ted


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Leighton, Ron


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Bermingham, Gerald
Lewis, Terry


Bidwell, Sydney
Livingstone, Ken


Blair, Tony
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Blunkett, David
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Boateng. Paul
Loyden, Eddie


Boyes, Roland
McAllion, John


Bradley, Keith
McAvoy, Thomas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Macdonald, Calum A.


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
McKelvey, William


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
McTaggart, Bob


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McWilliam, John


Buchan, Norman
Madden, Max


Caborn, Richard
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Callaghan, Jim
Meacher, Michael


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Meale, Alan


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Canavan, Dennis
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Cartwright, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Morgan, Rhodri


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Morley, Elliott


Clay, Bob
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Clelland, David
Mullin, Chris


Cohen, Harry
Murphy, Paul


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Nellist, Dave


Corbett, Robin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cryer, Bob
Patchett, Terry


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Pendry, Tom


Dalyell, Tam
Pike, Peter L.


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dixon, Don
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dobson, Frank
Reid, Dr John


Doran, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Rogers, Allan


Eastham, Ken
Rooker, Jeff


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Rowlands, Ted


Fatchett, Derek
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Fearn, Ronald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Short, Clare


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Skinner, Dennis


Fisher, Mark
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Flannery. Martin
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Foster, Derek
Steel, Rt Hon David


Foulkes, George
Steinberg, Gerry


Fyfe, Maria
Strang, Gavin


Galloway, George
Straw, Jack


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Turner, Dennis


Gould, Bryan
Vaz, Keith


Graham, Thomas
Wall, Pat


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Wallace, James


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Wigley, Dafydd


Grocott, Bruce
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Haynes, Frank
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Heffer, Eric S.
Wilson, Brian


Henderson, Doug
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hinchliffe, David
Worthington, Tony


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)



Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Mr. Frank Cook and


Howells, Geraint
Mr. Robert N. Wareing.





NOES


Adley, Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Alexander, Richard
Forth, Eric


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Allason, Rupert
Franks, Cecil


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Freeman, Roger


Amess, David
French, Douglas


Arbuthnot, James
Gardiner, George


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gill, Christopher


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Ashby, David
Goodlad, Alastair


Aspinwall, Jack
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Atkins, Robert
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Gorst, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gow, Ian


Baldry, Tony
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Batiste, Spencer
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Beggs, Roy
Gregory, Conal


Bendall, Vivian
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Grist, Ian


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Grylls, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Body, Sir Richard
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boswell, Tim
Hanley, Jeremy


Bottomley, Peter
Hannam,John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bowis, John
Harris, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Haselhurst, Alan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hayes, Jerry


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hayward, Robert


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Heddle, John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hind, Kenneth


Buck, Sir Antony
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Budgen, Nicholas
Holt, Richard


Burns, Simon
Hordern, Sir Peter


Burt, Alistair
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Butcher, John
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Butler, Chris
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Butterfill, John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunter, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Carttiss, Michael
Irvine, Michael


Cash, William
Irving, Charles


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jack, Michael


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Janman, Tim


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Colvin, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Key, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Kilfedder, James


Cope, Rt Hon John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Couchman, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cran, James
Knapman, Roger


Critchley, Julian
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Curry, David
Knowles, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knox, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Day, Stephen
Lang, Ian


Devlin, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan


Dicks, Terry
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dover, Den
Lightbown, David


Dunn, Bob
Lilley, Peter


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Eggar, Tim
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Evennett, David
McCrindle, Robert


Fallon, Michael
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Favell, Tony
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maclean, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael






McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shersby, Michael


Major, Rt Hon John
Sims, Roger


Malins, Humfrey
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mans, Keith
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maples, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Marland, Paul
Speller, Tony


Marlow, Tony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Squire, Robin


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Steen, Anthony


Maude, Hon Francis
Stern, Michael


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stevens, Lewis


Mellor, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Miller, Sir Hal
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Mills. Iain
Stokes, Sir John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sumberg, David


Moore, Rt Hon John
Summerson, Hugo


Morrison, Sir Charles
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Neale, Gerrard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thorne, Neil


Nicholls, Patrick
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tracey, Richard


Page, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Paice, James
Trippier, David


Patnick, Irvine
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Pawsey, James
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waldegrave, Hon William


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Walden, George


Porter, David (Waveney)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Portillo, Michael
Waller, Gary


Powell, William (Corby)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Price, Sir David
Ward, John


Raffan, Keith
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Redwood, John
Watts, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wells, Bowen


Riddick, Graham
Wheeler, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Widdecombe, Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wiggin, Jerry


Rowe, Andrew
Wilshire, David


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ryder, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wood, Timothy


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Woodcock, Mike


Sayeed, Jonathan
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Scott, Nicholas
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shaw, David (Dover)



Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tellers for the Noes:


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

Royal Assent

Madam Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed further with the Criminal Justice Bill, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Dartford—Thurrock Crossing Act 1988
2. Consumer Arbitration Agreements Act 1988
3. Scotch Whisky Act 1988
4. Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Act 1988

5. Dartmouth—Kingswear Floating Bridge Act 1988
6. Brighton and Preston Cemetery Act 1988
7. Associated British Ports (Barrow) Act 1988

Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

New Clause 83

AMENDMENT OF PRESCRIBED LIMITS

`In Schedule 8 of the Transport Act 1981, in the definition of "the prescribed limit" in paragraph 12(2), for the figures "35", "80", and "107", there shall be subsituted the figures "22", "50" and "67".'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I note that the measures which have just been proclaimed as having received the Royal Assent include the Scotch Whisky Act 1988, followed quickly by the Brighton and Preston Cemetery Act 1988. Without wishing to make fun of a serious situation, that is apt when we consider the problems relating to drinking and driving.
New clause 83 is an important new clause which seeks to amend the prescribed limits of alcohol which are permissible in the bloodstream when someone is allowed to drive legally in this country. I emphasise the word "legally," because we are all well aware that many people take risks and drink and drive, often without realising the impact that that will have on their driving ability. That affects the safety of our roads and of many people.
Those who have studied the problem realise that drinking and driving is extremely serious, and the problem has escalated in recent years. Our actions to deal with the problem in Britain lag behind those of many other countries, especially in western Europe.
Many problems are associated with drinking and driving. It is a major cause—perhaps the major cause—of avoidable deaths in this country. Figures show that between 1,400 and 1,600 people per year are killed on our roads as a direct result of people drinking and driving. We are all well aware of the grief, anguish and misery that drunken drivers cause, although many of them feel that they are capable of driving when they set out in their motor cars.
The problem of drinking and driving is always highlighted at one particular time of the year. It is good to see a representative of the Department of Transport in the Chamber, because it is the campaigns of the Department of Transport which bring the dangers of drinking and driving most before the public, usually around Christmas. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but that is not necessarily the worst time for accidents involving drinking and driving. Indeed, I understand that most accidents involving drinking and driving occur at this time of the year when the evenings are light and many people go out to country pubs for a drink. People often drink more than they should until they are over the limit, and they cause accidents and frequently deaths.
The problem of drinking and driving is difficult, and it causes, as I have said, a great deal of grief and anguish. It is a problem that the House would do well to recognise and


take seriously. It is because we think that the time is right to take action on this problem that we have tabled new clause 83.
The question is what we should do about the problem of drinking and driving. I do not think that anyone would dispute the fact that it is a serious problem. We can, of course, wring our hands and express regret, but the House could take a whole range of measures that would directly reduce the problem. The new clause deals with one of our suggestions of how to reduce the problem. That suggestion—amendment of the prescribed limit—would have an impact, although obviously it would have most impact if it were introduced as part of a whole range of measures. I am thinking particularly of such items as the random breath test, which I believe we shall eventually have in this country. We tabled an amendment on that, but unfortunately it was not selected.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Is the hon. Lady aware that random breath-testing was introduced in Australia recently and that it has led to a great reduction in drinking by people who intend to drive?

Mrs. Taylor: Australia's experience is shared by other countries that have introduced random breath-testing. I shall deal later with some of the other evidence from Australia. There is increasing evidence from many countries, both in Europe and beyond, which suggests that, if we had random breath tests and tightened up a range of matters, there would be safer roads and fewer lives lost as a result of drinking and driving.
The random breath test would be a contribution, as would a revision of the penalties involved and more action to help those people who have a drink problem, but who, unfortunately, believe that they are capable of driving. Home Office Ministers should consider the defence that is sometimes advanced—called the hip-flask defence—whereby those who are charged have a drink after the offence has been committed and use that as a means of getting themselves acquitted.
All those measures have a part to play, but I want to concentrate my remarks, to keep in order, on the amendment to limit the prescribed amount of alcohol in a person's bloodstream when he or she is driving. We are all aware that, 20 years ago, when the original drinking and driving legislation was introduced, there was an outcry from some people that it was an infringement of liberty and that we should let people drink and drive and use their own judgment of their ability to drive and when they had to exercise restraint. That outcry faded very quickly, and the breathalyser is now generally accepted as being right and a constructive measure in road safety.
Unfortunately, the initial impact of the breathalyser has worn off for some people. That is one of the reasons why so many people are now drinking and driving above the limit and why it is a major problem in this country. It is a major problem for the victims and their families and for the Health Service and the police. We therefore need to do more. It is interesting to see how the number of people charged with drinking and driving has increased over the years, which substantiates the argument that the initial impact of the breathalyser has worn off.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Can my hon. Friend say whether the figure has increased in line with the number of drivers? Is she aware that there are now three

times more drivers and three times more cars on the road than there were when the legislation was introduced, yet there are not three times more convictions?

Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Since the introduction of the breath test 20 years ago, there has been a fivefold increase in convictions in England and Wales, and findings of guilty for those who drink and drive, per 100,000 vehicles, which takes into account my hon. Friend's point about more vehicles on the road, have increased from 225 in 1969 to 545 in 1984. That shows that the fivefold increase in convictions has been the result of people becoming more lax in their attitudes to drinking and driving. All the evidence about people's reaction time when they are drinking and driving shows that it is extremely unwise to drink and drive, that reaction time is increased, that concentration and attention are reduced, that people are slower to process information and that their visual functions are impaired.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): indicated assent.

Mrs. Taylor: I am glad to see the Minister agreeing with all those points. All the evidence from all the countries, including this country, shows that drivers have a poorer performance when alcohol has been consumed. Although many drivers may be confident about their driving ability when they have been drinking, it is false confidence. That is one of the problems related to alcohol consumption.

Mr. Hind: The hon. Lady has a good point, but does she not think that we should be considering other factors in relation to this matter? First, perhaps we should consider more severe sentences for those people convicted of such offences. Secondly, we should consider whether getting into a car while over the limit for driving is a reckless act in itself and, therefore, we should be looking to charge people with reckless driving. Thirdly, to assist in that, we should consider whether the police should have the power to conduct random breath tests whenever they wish to do so.

Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber during the whole of my speech, but I made those three points earlier. I agree that we must consider the sentencing of people who are found guilty and the charges made against people. Many hon. Members agree that there is a strong case for random breath tests, which I would support because it would be a constructive measure.

Sir Ian Lloyd: I have followed the hon. Lady's comments with great. interest. I had hoped that, having read the speech, that I made on the Adjournment some months ago, when I described in great detail what is now possible, she would be admitting, welcoming and asking the Government to endorse a new possibility. The problem can be dealt with by technology. It does not require law. It requires a willingness to recognise, as has occurred in Australia, that the breathalyser ignition lock and various associated attachments could make it impossible for anyone to drink and drive, provided that it became a law of this country that every new car coming into use after a certain date should be fitted with a breathalyser ignition lock.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting suggestion. That would be one way of preventing those people who have been drinking to excess from driving. However, I believe that we have a greater responsibility. We must stop people drinking and then wanting to drive. We must ensure that people recognise their responsibilities and the dangers inherent in drinking and driving. Unfortunately, many people underestimate the impact of drinking on their driving ability.
I mentioned a moment ago some of the many difficulties that result from drinking and the way in which a driver's reaction is impaired. Many people do not realise that impairment starts at a very low level. The present level of 80 mg is rather high when compared with many other countries. All the evidence shows that concentration is impaired at as low a level as 30 mg of alcohol in the blood. Therefore, we should carefully consider reducing the present legal limit.
It is a simple fact that, at the present level of 80 mg, the average person is four times more likely to have an accident than if he or she had not been drinking. At 50 mg, the average person is still twice as likely to have an accident than if he or she had not been drinking at all.

Mr. Ashton: A short while ago my hon. Friend said that only 500 drivers out of every 100,000 are convicted of drink-driving. That is half of 1 per cent. On my hon. Friend's figures—not on mine—the original rate was 200 for every 100,000, which is 0·.2 of 1 per cent. Surely my hon. Friend is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Mrs. Taylor: I do not know whether my hon. Friend recalls the figures that I produced, but they showed a fivefold increase in convictions since the breathalyser was introduced. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be complacent about the impact of drinking on driving. I am sure that he would not want to encourage motorists to drink and drive. It is the attitude of those who think that they are capable of drinking and driving that leads to so many of the serious accidents that occur. We all have a responsibility to ensure that motorists do not drink and drive, and that if they feel a need to drink they should minimise their drinking to the smallest level possible.

Sir Neil Macfarlane: Many of my hon. Friends and I have sympathy with what the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) is saying, and many of her sentiments will be echoed throughout the country. Part of the problem is that the courts are not severe enough on those who are prepared to take the risk and do drink and drive. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) referred to this indirectly in his comments about reckless driving. The 1957 legislation bore upon this and eliminated some of the potential convictions.

Mrs. Taylor: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That was one of the reasons why we tabled a new clause that called for the introduction of random breath tests. Unfortunately, it was not selected for debate. We see the proposal in new clause 83 as one of the measures that should be introduced. We would also support the introduction of random breath tests, because a lowering of "the prescribed limit" and random testing, when taken together, could have a significant impact on the number of deaths that occur through drinking and driving.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am listening carefully to the exposition of my hon. Friend the Member

for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). Sympathetic comments have been made by some Conservative Members, who want to see improved road safety and a reduction in drinking and driving. Many of them, however, found themselves in what might be called the brewers' lobby when the Licensing Bill, as it then was, was proceeding through the House. They voted for longer opening hours, to provide a greater opportunity to drink more and then to drive.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It was one that we raised when the Licensing Bill was passing through the House some months ago. We felt that the Government were creating a serious problem by legislating to increase pub opening hours before doing anything to tackle a range of problems associated with alcohol abuse, of which drinking and driving is one. If my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) considers the evidence in Scotland, where there has been all-day opening for some time, he will find that the peak time for drink-related road accidents starts in the late afternoon, at about 5 o'clock. Many of us are worried that that trend might be found in this country when the new licensing laws come into operation.
I shall return to the main issues raised by the new clause rather than get sidetracked on to some of the important but slightly wider issues that arise from it. I shall mention some of the difficulties that arise from the present limit of 80 mg when breathalyser tests are carried out. At 80 mg, the average person is four times more likely to have an accident than if he had not consumed alcohol. There are particular problems for certain groups in the population. Many countries have undertaken a great deal of research and obtained a considerable amount of information about the problems that arise for those of certain ages.
The House may be interested to know that drivers over the age of 55 years have an increased risk of having an accident while driving even if they have consumed only very small amounts of alcohol. Other research shows that 18 to 24-year-olds especially have a much higher increased rate of accidents when they have been drinking and driving. I hope that the Minister will consider introducing an even lower limit than the 50 mg that we are suggesting for learner drivers and new drivers. The mixture of motorists new to driving and new to drinking alcohol can be lethal. Young drivers, especially young men, who are drinking and driving and trying to improve their standing among their peer group in terms of the macho image, which, unfortunately, is so popular now, are in a particularly dangerous position.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I have listened with great attention to the most recent argument advanced by the hon. Member, but I wonder whether it is not part of a wider one. Should not the size and maximum speed of cars be related to the experience of those driving them? The hon. Lady's figures do not, as she has presented them, differentiate clearly between the weight that we should put on experience and the weight that we should place on our experience in the consumption of alcohol.

Mrs. Taylor: I do not wish to follow the hon. Gentleman down that path. He has raised some interesting issues, but I do not think that they are especially pertinent to the new clause. They go somewhat wider than the clause. I agree that there is a range of road safety matters that we should be considering. Many countries have already revised their limits, and these are in line with the


suggestion that is set out in new clause 83. Australia, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands, Iceland, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and parts of the United States have accepted that a limit of 50 mg is right and that it can he introduced with public acceptance. It is recognised that it is adequate for the police to monitor and enforce.
I believe that the time has come for us to revise the breath test laws. There is sufficient public concern and acceptance of the introduction of random breath tests and of a reduction in the amount of alcohol that can be permitted when someone is proposing to drive, but reducing the amount of alcohol that is allowed to be consumed by motorists is only one development. We must ensure also that there is enforcement of the limit, and of the right limit.
That is why I hope that the Government are considering carefully the introduction of random breath tests and the other measures that I have outlined. I believe that it is only a matter of time before we have random breath tests and a reduction of the limit. I hope that the House will not delay any longer, because with every delay we shall lose more lives. We should act now. The House should accept the new clause, which sets out a constructive suggestion which would help to save lives on our roads.

Sir Bernard Braine: I rise to support the new clause, which was moved so persuasively by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). I give it my full support, hut I have one reservation, which concerns its effective enforcement. First, however, I shall deal with the reasons why I believe that it should be accepted. This is one of the occasions—they are all too few—when we can take a view across party lines. We are all in close touch with our constituents and I feel that there are many Opposition Members who will agree with a great deal of what I have to say. I hope too, that I shall be persuasive enough to ensure that many of my hon. Friends will agree with me as well.
The reason for my concern can be expressed quite simply. The international scientific consensus is that a blood alcohol level of 50 mg is the maximum compatible with the safety of other road users. Almost exactly 30 years ago an article appeared in the British Medical Journal reporting the results of a series of experiments to test the effect of small doses of alcohol on driving skill. The conclusion of the article was:
performance begins to deteriorate with very low blood alcohol concentrations, certainly of the order of 20–30mg per cent. and that the deterioration is progressive and linearly related to blood alcohol level. There is, in the study, no evidence of a threshold effect.
The key words were:
with alcohol there is no threshold, behaviour begins to deteriorate as soon as it is in the blood.
Some people may argue that, on that basis, the legal alcohol limit for driving should be reduced to 30 mg, or even to zero. I myself have great sympathy with that view. The absence of a clear threshold means that the choice of any blood alcohol level must to some degree be arbitrary. It involves accepting a level of consumption that has already impaired the capacity to drive safely. Therefore, no legal limit can be a safe limit, but some legal limits are considerably more unsafe than others. I hope that the Government will consider further whether even a 50 mg limit may be too high, especially for the young and inexperienced driver.
5.30 pm
On 13 January 1981, in the debate on the Transport Bill, I referred to the suggestion made by Miss Barbara Sabey, then of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, that there should be a differential lower limit of 30 mg for young drivers. Since then, such legislation has been introduced in Australia. I hope that the Department of Transport keeps a watching brief on developments there and will be able to inform the House of the effects. It is sad that, despite so many warnings over the years—it has not happened just recently—from experts outside, here and elsewhere in the world and from parliamentarians on both sides of the House, we are still pressing the obvious, without any satisfaction.
One specific reason for reducing the present limit is that the introduction of evidential breath testing actually resulted in the legal limit in effect being raised to a level above 80 mg. The normal practice of not prosecuting drivers whose blood alcohol level is 40 micrograms per 100 ml of breath means that, in practice, the legal alcohol limit is now over 90 mg. There is, therefore, a compelling case for reducing the legal limit simply to take account of that factor, let alone the known effects of even small quantities of alcohol in impairing driving performance.
The argument normally put forward against lowering the limit is that the majority of those convicted of drinking and driving are found to be, not slightly above the present limit, but two or three times over it. Thus the majority of offenders do not make a slight, innocent error in calculating their blood alcohol level: they make no attempt to remain within the limit. There is little reason, therefore, to suppose that a lower limit would make any difference to them.
That argument is not, by any means, wholly convincing, because it overlooks the substantial change in public attitudes towards drinking and driving that appears to be taking place, as we know from our local newspapers. All of us have conversed with our constituents at our weekly surgeries and know that they are worried that we do not appear to be acting in the face of the mayhem on the roads caused by drinking drivers. Many people are increasingly inclined to see a contradiction between the message of the Government's anti-drink drive campaign that "One drink can kill" and a legal limit that still permits the consumption of large quantities of alcohol.
A reduction of the legal limit to 50 mg would therefore be an acknowledgment of the shift in public attitudes and a move in the right direction. For that reason alone, I would support the new clause. Such a reduction would be far more consistent with the message of the Government's campaign. If that is not grasped by Ministers, I for one cannot take their campaign seriously.
The difficulty about enforcement cannot be ignored, and that is the weakness of the new clause. If we do not succeed in enforcing effectively the present 80 mg limit, there is a danger that a lower limit will result in even greater difficulties. In the words of one of the early authorities on this subject, the Blennerhassett committee:
to reduce
the limit to 50mg
would be of doubtful benefit while police resources remain severely limited; there are real disadvantages in enlarging the category of potential offenders when it is certain that many over the present limit avoid detection.
The majority of those who drink and drive are playing the percentage game. They know that their chance of


detection on any journey is so small as to be negligible. No less a body than the National Audit Office pointed that out just two weeks ago. Countries such as Finland, Norway and Sweden and most of the states of Australia which are tackling drinking and driving successfully have a 50mg limit, but they also have random breath testing to ensure that the limit is enforced.
I do not believe that a 50mg limit, any more than an 80mg limit, could be enforced primarily by an education and publicity campaign. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic has campaigned vigorously in this direction and one cannot fail to admire him for that, but he has recently claimed that his campaign is having a greater effect than would random testing. That is a bold claim and is wholly at variance with experience in this as well as in other countries. The Government's interdepartmental review of road safety pointed out that education and publicity campaigns have not been shown to be effective in reducing the number of casualties. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make available to the House the evidence on which he bases his claim.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I shall certainly do that. The interdepartmental review took place before the last year and a half of the campaign, and drink driving above the legal limit has halved among young men, who are the primary target group. That is a greater reduction than the drop claimed in Finland and Australia. It is worth remembering that 20,000 people were last year discovered to be above the legal limit in Sweden, which has one seventh of our population. That suggests that there is more drink driving there than here.

Sir Bernard Braine: After all the intensive efforts that have been made, I should be surprised if there had not been some results. As my hon. Friend chose to intervene at this point, I would point out that I asked for this information in a letter to him. In his reply, he perhaps absent-mindedly omitted to provide it. Of course, the proper place to provide it is on the Floor of the House of Commons. However, I take comfort from the fact that he has promised to provide that information. I suspect, however, that the evidence to which he refers is no more than a bit of market research data, derived from interviews with extremely small samples of the population, and is not, therefore, a measure of the real frequency of drinking and driving.
These days one cannot open up a newspaper after the weekend without seeing what is happening in the towns and villages of our peaceful countryside. Mobs of drunken youths, many of them arriving and leaving in their cars, are causing unprecedented disturbances. [Interruption.] It is no use my hon. Friend the Minister shaking his head. The evidence is there in the newspapers and in what chief officers of police have been saying. I hope that this matter will be taken seriously. I assure my hon. Friend that it is taken seriously in the country as a whole, and this is reflected in Members' postbags, certainly in mine. Market research is a doubtful means of finding out something entirely different—the willingness of people to admit that they drink and drive.
We have had anti-drink driving campaigns in Britain for decades.

Mr. Ashton: They do not work.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman should say that to people who have lost dear ones in road accidents. Death and injuries are happening all the time. An improvement is certainly welcome, but the casualties still occur. Hon. Members and Ministers in this responsible Parliament should not forget that the toll goes on and that our efforts should not cease until it is reduced much further.
The slogan "If you drink don't drive, and if you drive don't drink" must be at least 50 years old. I was chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism for about nine years and that slogan was well known and greatly flourished at that time. Yet, in spite of it, the carnage on our roads has continued. Ironically, the main effect of the present campaign may well have been to firm up public opinion in favour of a lower legal limit and an effective system of enforcing that limit.
Despite the harsh words that I used about my hon. Friend the Minister, I admire a great deal of what he is trying to do and the energy that he puts into it. However, if he wants his campaign to succeed, he must accept something along the lines of the new clause. He must accept random breath testing, and he must demonstrate to the nation as a whole that he means serious business. I shortly hope to raise this and other matters with the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords.
I shall listen intently, therefore, to the Minister's reply. I should like him to give an assurance that the Government have an open mind on this question, are receptive to change, and are prepared to consider a lowering of the limit and effective enforcement of that lower limit. No hon. Member can have constituents who have not lost a loved one or a friend or a neighbour due to the recklessness of those who drink and drive. The nation is looking to the House to take effective action. If we fail to do so, it will not lightly forgive those responsible. I commend the new clause to the House on the understanding that the nettle of enforcement—that is the key—is firmly grasped.

Mr. Ashton: It is difficult to defend drunken driving, and I do not intend to do so. No hon. Member has any pity for someone who drinks and drives and causes an accident. However, we should get away from some of the extremism in the debate and look at the matter rationally. I shall begin by giving a few statistics. They are not my statistics, but come from reputable newspapers such as this week's Sunday Times.
Britain does not have an alcohol problem. A tiny section of the population, mainly teenagers in the open air marching down the streets to a football match or on the Costa Brava, at the Notting Hill carnival or in New Year's Eve celebrations, can be seen drinking from cans of lager and showing off, vandalising and wrecking the neighbourhood. That is where the problem with alcohol lies. The problem is not with the average middle-aged bloke who has a couple of pints in the pub and then goes home for his Sunday lunch or who goes home at half-past 10 during the week.
Britain's record on alcohol consumption is good. We are 20th in the world league table; and that statistic is taken from this week's Sunday Times. I do not want to bore the House but I shall read out the league table. France is at the top, followed by East Germany, Portugal, Hungary, Spain, West Germany, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Italy, Australia—which hon. Members have mentioned many times—


Argentina, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Canada and the USA. All those countries have a greater alcohol consumption per head of population than Britain.
5.45 pm
Statistics show that the consumption of alcohol in Britain is going down every year. Last year it went down another 1·5 per cent. Britain drinks only half the amount that it consumed 50 years ago. However, there is much more hysteria now, more media attention and publicity campaigns and more effective protests by the temperance lobby. That is why there is a cry of wolf against the average person having a drink in a pub.
In 1968, when the legislation was introduced, there were far fewer cars on the road. There are now three times as many cars and three times as many drivers as when the breathalyser was brought in, but there are about the same number of accidents caused by drivers over the limit. There has been a great improvement not just in terms of drink and driving accidents but in terms of all accidents. The standard of driving is much higher and the cars are of much better quality. There are not as many 20-year-old cars on the road as there were in 1968, and roads are better, and better lit. As I say, in terms of drunken accidents or other accidents, the statistics are far better than they were in 1968. The number of positive tests has dropped by two thirds.
I am wary of statistics, because I often hear them trotted out about accidents involving drink and then find that many of them are caused by drunken pedestrians. They are the people who stagger out of a pub and walk into the middle of the road. A perfectly sober motorist is unable to avoid such a person, the pedestrian is knocked down, and that becomes a drink-related accident and goes into the statistics.
I shared a flat with the late Frank McElhone who was a Member of this House. He drove home from the pictures in Glasgow one night where he had been with his wife. It was New Year's Eve and as usual a drunk shouted, "Hello, Jimmy," and walked into the middle of the road and was knocked down. Frank had to go to be breathalysed, and was very upset. It was quite right that he was breathalysed, but it went on to the statistics as a drink-related accident. Far too often, people deliberately confuse the statistics. The present system is working well. I do not defend drunken drivers and have no lack of sympathy for people who have had relatives or friends injured in a drunk driving accident. Later in my speech, I shall look at how to prevent such accidents.
In my constituency we had a massive experience of random breath testing, as did the whole of Nottinghamshire in 1986 and, I think, 1985 when we had a chief constable, Mr. McLaughlin, who was a teetotaller and took on himself a one-man crusade to introduce random breath testing. I think that in doing that he broke the law, but nobody could stop him because there is no democratic control over chief constables.
In 1986 in Nottinghamshire, Mr. McLaughlin tested 4,733 people in about 10 days around Christmas. In the county of Derbyshire, 528 people were tested. South Yorkshire next door tested 652 people and in Cleveland 54 people were tested. When all these people had been tested it was found that 3 per cent. of them were over the limit. The percentage was exactly the same in Derbyshire or anywhere else. Mr. McLaughlin tested 10 times as many people as the other counties.
My constituents reacted with intense anger and uproar about the way in which the tests had been carried out. People were tested while they were filling their cars with petrol. A policeman would come up and say, "I suspect that you are over the limit." That used to happen at 5 o'clock, when people were on their way home from work. There were allegations that policemen had been given quotas and had been told—perhaps not by the chief constable but by others down the ladder—that they were expected to breath-test 35 motorists every day. People driving home from work when the pubs were shut were doing no harm at all but were faced with road blocks and were told by the police that they were conducting a test on tyres or windscreen wipers. When a motorist had demonstrated the windscreen wipers, he was given a breathalyser bag to blow into.
Such things caused an enormous protest, especially from people who did not drink. They were incensed that they had been stopped on their way home from work or stopped at a petrol station and forced into random breath testing. The other unfair aspect was that it depended on which county one lived in.
What is random? Does one stop one in 10 or one in 20, or is it up to the chief superintendent, who may feel liverish that morning, or may think that statistics are down and need bolstering? Perhaps the police will go out on odd days of the week and check every car with an odd number or every car with an even number. What is random? It depends on whether the chief constable is a teetotaller. It is the same with hon. Members, whose views are influenced by whether they are anti-drink. They are entitled to their opinion, but they should make it clear that they are anti-drink rather than against the present limits.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I remind the House that, when Mrs. Barbara Castle introduced the Act in 1986, I assisted her in taking it through the House. The House was given an assurance that there would be no random testing under that legislation. We must accept that, whatever one's views of random testing, a change in the law is needed if it is to be authorised.

Mr. Ashton: Testing can be carried out only when a moving traffic offence has been committed. That was not the case in Nottinghamshire during those two Christmases. There was certainly a massive amount of testing—4,000 tests in 10 days.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I hope that my hon. Friend will press the Minister on the specific point about whether random breath testing is legal at present. The Minister for Public Transport implied that random testing was possible, but Home Office Ministers have always insisted that a driver can be stopped at random for a purpose, but that there cannot be random testing. The Minister for Public Transport was slightly misleading the House.

Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend illustrates the problems of this difficult matter well. If we accept the new clause, far more people will appear in court. There will be far more wrangles and extended arguments, and loopholes will be found. Matters will be far worse than at present.

Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Smallheath): Does my hon. Friend accept the fundamental proposition that the civil liberties of the people of this country should prevent them from being apprehended and inquired into in


circumstances that are an affront to their dignity, if there is no evidence available to the police officer to cause him to apprehend them?

Mr. Ashton: My right hon. Friend is right. Such an action would irritate and annoy the public to such an extent that any affection that they might have for the police would be quickly alienated.
Lowering the levels would have a great effect on rural constituencies such as mine. My constituency covers 300 square miles, with 50 towns, villages and parish councils. My constituents cannot be told to use public transport; there is no public transport. Many of the villages do not have a bus service after 6.30 in the evening. If people want to go for a casual drink, they have to go in their car or walk a mile along an unlit road with no pavement, which they do not want to do, especially in winter.
If the levels are lowered, many of the smaller clubs, such as miners' institutes and labour clubs, will close. There is no question about that. They will close because the average 50-year-old bloke who takes his wife out does not have a lot of money on which to get drunk. Even poor people in such areas have to have a car because there are no buses. Their night out means going down to a working man's club for a game of darts, two pints of bitter and a shandy, and when they drive home the only thing they meet on the road is a rabbit. There is nothing else to be seen on the road.
If the new clause is accepted, those people would sit indoors watching television with a can of lager. The new clause would have a great effect on the social fabric of rural areas. The institutes and the working men's clubs—where mums and dads go on Saturday nights to have a game of bingo—are the backbone of the community. Club members lay on the pensioners' treats at Christmas and organise a couple of bags of coal for them. I went to a function at one of these clubs last week. At the club, there were 259 widows from one pit in my constituency. They would never have gone out or done anything or got any attention if it were not for the miners' institute. It is only the Friday and Saturday nights that keep the institutes going.
In rural areas, there is little recorded drunken driving. The drink-driving accidents that occur, as the Minister said, involve 21 or 22-year-old yobboes driving old bangers, and not the people who keep the clubs going.
I understand why hon. Members want to prevent death on the roads. I should be more enamoured of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and of the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) if they covered all death on the road, and not just drunken driving. As the Minister knows, one of the biggest killers is weight and speed, not drinking and driving. Heavy lorries on motorways, particularly in fog, may plough into a line of cars and kill 60 or 70 people at a stroke. That causes far more damage than the average drink-driver. Why do we not have weighbridges and police to divert lorries off the M1 for compulsory weighing to establish whether they are carrying a weight too heavy for their brakes?
If hon. Members tied in their campaign with death on the roads from causes such as that, rather than hounding all those who have a drink, I should have more sympathy with their arguments. But they do not. They adopt the

King Herod principle and say that the way to stop death on the roads is to stop all drinking. They might as well abolish all motor cars. They might as well say that to stop women being raped we should have a curfew and that women should not be allowed out after 6 o'clock at night. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury tabled a very good new clause dealing with rape. If we had rape legislation equivalent to this new clause, there would be a tremendous public outcry.
People who go two or three times over the limit and kill others must be punished far more severely. That is the way to solve the problem. The Government should bring in legislation providing that anyone who kills someone while they are over the limit is charged with manslaughter and spends 10 or 15 years in prison. That would produce a far bigger decrease in the number of people over the limits. Word would get round that drivers who were over the limit would not just be fined £500, lose their licence for six months and pay more insurance, but would go to prison like anyone else who takes a life. I would support that 100 per cent. Collective punishment—the argument that the way to catch the culprit is to stop everyone—does not work. It builds up public resentment.
I accept that there is too much of a gamble. I accept that at the moment people weigh up the odds of getting stopped on the way home, work out that there is a 40:1 chance and think, "I am only one pint over. I will take the chance." They take that chance knowing that, if they get caught. they will only have to pay a £500 fine and lose their licence for six months. If they knew that they would have to go to prison and that the crime was classed with other crimes of violence such as grievous bodily harm and manslaughter and attracted the same penalties, they would adopt the same attitude to drink-driving as to those crimes. That would be a far better proposal.
We are at risk of setting a dangerous parliamentary precedent. The proposal should be dealt with in private Member's legislation. If we vote for the new clause, it will reach the statute book with less than an hour's debate. There has been no consultation with our constituents and none of the argy-bargy of listening to lobby groups. The new clause will not have been considered and wrangled over in Committee, as the Abortion (Amendment) Bill was. It will become law, it will have been bounced through and the reaction in the headlines tomorrow will rightly be one of outrage. It would be undemocratic to do so. A controversial subject such as this should be debated in Parliament over several weeks, not one hour. That is what the House is about. It would be a retrograde step to approve the new clause.

6 pm

Sir Ian Lloyd: I agree with so much of what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said that I am able to keep my remarks briefer than I intended. Obviously, there is general agreement about the objective. No hon. Member would disagree with that. We wish to reduce the consequences of drunken driving, however and wherever they occur. That is obviously a matter of the gravest common sense. However, there is disagreement about the subsidiary objectives and the methods to achieve them. We must start thinking much more fundamentally about that point.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that, if we go too far and too quickly down this road, we shall pose a major


challenge to the social fabric and social behaviour patterns. Surely we do not have to recall the experience of prohibition in the United States to realise that the most powerful legislature can make an awful damned fool of itself if it passes laws that are effectively unenforceable because they require too radical, too drastic and too far-reaching a change in social behaviour, and require it too quickly.
Apart from the merits of the alcohol limit, it has been clear to me for a long time that there is a paradox, an inherent inconsistency between the law as it stands, which prescribes a limit that may or may not be too high—it is probably about right, but there is room for argument—and the suggestion that no one should drink and drive. That is an absolutist view. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we shall achieve that only by eliminating driving or by eliminating drinking. That is not realistic.
The country spends on alcohol just under what it spends on the National Health Service. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it spends half that sum on drinking alcohol in 2·5 million public houses. The vast majority of those who consume alcohol in such places get to and from them by car. That will not be changed by Government, and it will not be changed by law. Even the proper objective of eliminating drunken hooligan youths causing mayhem in villages and towns cannot be achieved by law, but it can be eliminated if no cars can be started by drunken drivers.
The technology is now available. It has been effectively demonstrated in Australia, where limits are lower, and it has been used for drivers on probation in California. The technology is not all that expensive. Obviously, it cannot be brought in overnight, and it will probably be difficult to apply it to existing vehicles, but if the House is serious and it wants to eliminate drunken driving, there is only one way to do it, and that is to fit every vehicle with a breathalyser ignition lock. That would create one problem. In any society there are always individuals who will say, "I shall get around that. I shall fiddle with the sealed box. I shall break the seals and tamper with the electronics in such a way that, even though the car has a breathalyser ignition lock, I can override its commands."
That would pose the same kind of problem as going through the green customs channel when one should go through the red channel. Obviously, the penalties must be infinitely higher. It will not eliminate the need for occasional or systematic checks of drivers' alcohol intake, but the police would be entitled to assume that every vehicle beyond a certain age and which was so equipped could not he driven by a drunken driver. In such cases, the penalties for so doing could properly be five or 10 times those for drivers of any other vehicle. The problem can be taken care of.
The essence of this extremely difficult and important matter is that we shall not achieve our objective by any changes in the law that have as their basic assumption—my hon. Friend the Minister takes it as his basic assumption—total abstinence on the part of every driver on every possible occasion. That is a counsel of perfection. Human societies do not achieve perfection. For heaven's sake, when technology comes rushing in with new devices that enable us to achieve our objectives without draconian laws and draconian enforcement, let us use them.

Mr. Roland Boyes: My speech will be quite brief, as I made the case for lowering

the blood alcohol limit when I presented a private Member's Bill earlier this year. That Bill was supported by all political parties.
Tomorrow, Parliament will receive a lobby group. That is not exceptional—Parliament receives many lobby groups. But tomorrow's lobby will be the most emotional for some considerable time. It is organised by the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving, a group that supports the families of people who are killed or injured by drunken, irresponsible drivers. I invite my hon. Friend the Member Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and other hon. Members to attend the meeting in the Grand Committee Room at half past 2 tomorrow afternoon.
My hon. Friend is a forceful speaker, and he made his points strongly. He said that, when random checks were made in several counties, 3 per cent. of drivers were found to be over the limit. Three per cent. is one car in every 30. If one stands beside fast-moving traffic, 30 cars will pass by every minute. If one in 30 drivers is over the limit, people on motorways or fast-moving dual carriageways are at significant risk. Three per cent. is a huge figure.

Mr. Ashton: It was 3 per cent. who were over the limit, not 3 per cent. who were involved in accidents. That is a different figure.

Mr. Boyes: I concede that 3 per cent. of all drivers were over the limit. If one is over the present limit, one's chances of being in an accident are high. I shall be even more wary if, every time I drive my car, one driver out of the 30 drivers that pass me is over the legal limit. If that is the case, a large number of people are breaking the law.
My hon. Friend referred to non-drinkers being incensed. He knows full well that I am a non-drinker. He went on to suggest that non-drinkers are against alcohol. Living in the north-east of England and being a member of two dozen workmen's clubs, many of which I visit regularly——

Mr. Ashton: Not any longer.

Mr. Boyes: My hon. Friend says, "Not any longer." I have introduced two private Member's Bills, one on random breath testing and one on lowering the blood alcohol limit. On each occasion, the response was favourable, because the people I represent—the working people in the north-east—have more wit. They understand the family consequences of some drunken slob killing somebody.

Mr. Ashton: Send the driver to gaol.

Mr. Boyes: The victim does not go to gaol. It is too late to send people to gaol when they have wiped out a family or a part of a family.

Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend said that the reaction of the public was favourable. Is he aware that Barbara Castle said exactly the same when she introduced the original Bill, but in the following month at a Leicester by-election the Labour party was slaughtered and lost a seat as a result of public reaction? The silent majority are those who do not write letters. My hon. Friend would find a different reaction from people in his club if the amendment were passed.

Mr. Boyes: My hon. Friend said that he was suspicious of data and market research; I am dubious and suspicious about that little piece of evidence. He said that people


would react but, obviously, he has not been reading the recent opinion polls, especially those on random breath tests. The latest shows that more than 80 per cent. of the public wished random breath testing to be introduced.
Even in the correspondence column of the Spectator, I have praised what the Minister for Roads and Traffic is doing. In fact, I praise anybody, especially the Government, who does anything about drinking and driving and alcohol abuse. All hon. Members should welcome that. I cannot understand why my hon. Friend has a blind spot. On everything else he is going in the right direction, but he runs into a brick wall whenever random breath tests are mentioned.

Mr. Ashton: rose——

Mr. Boyes: Will my hon. Friend give me a second or two? He had a long crack at his speech. The Whip is looking at me and we all know that that means that I must end my speech.
I have never lived in a city, but when the canny and sensible folk in the north-east go out in fours, three of them will drink and one will not—[Interruption.] I notice that the heckling is coming from my hon. Friends.
I wish that the Government would do more to promote non-alcoholic drinks, because that would solve part of the problem. People could spend an evening in a pub, club, hotel or wherever and drink as many non-alcoholic beers as they wished. I am not an expert on these matters, but my friends who drink non-alcoholic beers tell me that they are as enjoyable as alcoholic ones. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] I still advocate them, and I ask the Minister to push them very strongly.
The Campaign Against Drinking and Driving press release states that at half past 2 tomorrow:
A representative group of victim families, from as far afield as Manchester and Newcastle"—
and, I understand, Northern Ireland—
will be pleading with M.P.s to work for the introduction of an effective system of random breath testing before another 500 innocent victims are killed on our roads by drinking drivers.
Each will carry a white flower for the dead victim(s) in their family who has been killed in circumstances which they regard as a form of murder.
One family coming tomorrow will be carrying three white flowers. Just think what that actually means—some arrogant, selfish individual killed three members of one family. It is all right for my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to say, "They should have sent him to jail," but that is not the solution. I do not want more people in jail. I want people to drive cars without alcohol in their systems. That will stop people being killed on our roads.
Reference has been made to the cost of the alcohol industry. The latest paper that I have received states that drink-related accidents are costing the NHS—the taxpayer about £400 million a year. Therefore, not only are people being killed, but a heavy strain and cost is being placed on the Health Service.
6.15 pm
I support lower alcohol limits. I do not have time to read the letters that I received each time that I introduced my ten-minute Bills, but they are tragic and bring tears to my eyes, even when I re-read them. Many people are being killed on our roads. In fact, three people will be killed

today, three more people tomorrow and three more the day after. On every day of this year three people will be killed on the roads because some other people will drive with too much alcohol in their blood, thus impairing their driving.
I support the proposal to reduce the blood alcohol limit. My advice to youngsters, new drivers and even experienced drivers—in fact, to everyone, and I am prepared to say it to my constituents broadly and loudly—is "if you go out with your car, do not drink alcohol." That must be the message.

Sir Neil Macfarlane: I do not wish to detain the House for very long, because I know that my hon. Friends want to make progress. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) gave the House a powerful reminder of the dilemma that we face. Of course, the comments of hon. Members underline the dissent on both sides of the House.
I have a general sympathy for the aims and objectives of the new clause that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) so articulately moved. Many people outside this House will echo her remarks. During the past few months there has been some disquiet about which Government Department is in charge. In recent years I had some loose connection with this problem in another area. While I commend my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic for his annual campaign, as I did not support the Licensing Bill I cannot help but feel that that campaign should be prolonged over a 12-month period, not just over four, six or eight weeks.
However commendable the hon. Lady's proposal, I am not convinced that it is legislatively absolutely right. I shall listen closely to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has to say. If our right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State is to be believed, and from what I saw a few months ago on television, the Home Office is not entirely seduced by the argument on random breath testing. Our right hon. and noble Friend made it clear to the annual meeting of police officers that he would not encourage further conflict between the motoring fraternity and the police. If that lead is taken, this problem will be kicked into touch quite a long way.
We have a problem with the relevant influence of the Department of Transport and the Home Office. Even if we accept only one quarter of what we read in the newspapers and see on television—not just in recent weeks or months, but the pattern during the past two or three years—no one doubts that alcohol abuse and alcohol and liquor consumption are problems.
I shall listen closely to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has to say about the package that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs intends to introduce. We will be sitting on a powder keg if some serious action is not taken.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Drunken driving is an appalling offence, particularly when it leads to death. Everyone has a burning desire to stop it and to toughen the various penalties that exist, but there is a danger of over-reaction.
What we are discussing is whether we have the balance right regarding our drink-driving laws, whether there should be a tightening up, and, if so, which direction that should take. It is not immediately apparent to me that


there are millions or even thousands of people who believe that the way in which to improve the situation is to reduce the level of alcohol that drivers can consume before they are not permitted to drive. I have received hardly any letters suggesting that that particular solution to the problem has the public's favour. If the changes in the law do not meet with public approval and support, they will do far more harm than good.
We have been discussing random breath-testing, and I believe that something should be done. As the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) has said, it is perfectly true that it is unlawful to breath-test at random. However, it is not unlawful to stop a driver at random and then to breath-test if there is a suspicion of alcohol in the breath. It seems to me that the end is the same. The public are disturbed by the fact that there is no lawful random breath-testing yet that is sometimes what the police seem to he enforcing. The matter must be clarified.
Random breath-testing does take place. We are aware of police forces that carry it out and, as it were, say, "We are doing it; now take action against us." I believe that it should be open to the police to target campaigns when they choose in order to stop people getting into their cars after they have been drinking to excess. If that means that such campaigns would take place outside public houses or clubs, that would benefit society, provided that the police do it with good sense and provided that is what the law specifically allows. The confusion about whether random breath tests are allowed disturbs people and distracts one from the true argument. We should have a law that is clear to everyone and reduces the number of drivers who drive under the influence of drink.
The courts have in recent years tightened up on drink-driving offences. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said that we must get rid of the hip flask defence, which enables a person to argue that he has taken a drink after he has got into a car and driven. The hon. Lady is behind the times. Such a defence was stopped seven years ago. The appeal courts are tightening up on the rules determining the degree of a person's blame while driving under the influence of drink.
It is iniquitous that a driver under the influence of drink who kills somebody should be able to "cop a plea" of careless driving and receive a fine, together with disqualification. No wonder the public are appalled at that. I hope that the Government will take on board the new North committee proposals, which are designed to ensure that such a practice does not happen in the future, and that a drunken driver who kills receives a substantial sentence. It should no longer be possible for a court to accept pleas of guilty to a lesser charge. I hope that the fact that the Crown prosecution service has replaced the police as the prosecuting unit will have some effect.
There are areas in which we can, with public acceptability, reduce the incidence of drink-driving. We must ask, however, whether the new clause will help. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will provide some facts and statistics that are somewhat different from the picture that is generally thought to exist. We are reducing the amount of drinking that goes on and there are fewer people driving vehicles under the influence of drink. Whenever there is a party or a gathering nowadays there are couples where one partner touches no drink and drives home. That habit is gaining momentum in our society.
There is a danger that we will over-react and tilt the balance in the wrong direction. We could stop people dying on the roads by banning the motor car. As a result 20,000 fewer deaths would occur. We could stop people dying from smoking by banning cigarettes—2,000 deaths a year would be avoided. We could stop people being killed by shotguns or any other firearm, accidentally or deliberately, by banning firearms. We could stop women being raped at night if we had a curfew on our women.
Do we want to restrict movement in our society and alter the social fabric by implementing restrictions that are so extreme that they interfere with the broadly pleasant and happy life that our people enjoy? If we go too far to restrict the liberties of the individual and if we do not put some brake on the trend to do so, we may find ourselves living in a Britain where nobody wants to enjoy themselves and where few will want to stay.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister should be cautious. We should do whatever we can, of course, to restrict and put an end to drinking and driving, if that is possible, but such restrictions must be acceptable to the public. I believe that the proposals in the new clause are years ahead of their time. I do not detect the public calling out for a further reduction in the level of drinking that takes place. Such a reduction would destroy a part of our rural life. The village pub may be several miles from some villagers and they would be unable to get to and from it unless they had a vehicle. Such village pubs are of value to our society and we would do well to try to maintain them and the rural way of life that they represent.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: In common with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), I am in favour of people living a broadly pleasant and happy life, but they can do so only if they manage to stay alive. Drink-driving wipes out far too many people.
I disagreed with the original proposals introduced by Lady Castle. I believe that the driver of a vehicle should not drink at all. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton has said that such a custom has grown, but I believe that it should be the law of the land, as it is in many other countries. There should be a non-drinker in every vehicle. Given that that suggestion does not form part of the new clause, I believe that that new clause is the next best thing.
I believe that it is exceedingly important that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should provide incentives for the supply of soft or low alcohol drinks. At the moment such drinks are as expensive or more expensive than the full-bodied beer, which Opposition Members appear to rate so highly. I plead with the Minister to make provision for a non-drinking driver in every vehicle but, in lieu of that, the new clause is the next best thing.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): There has been much discussion about random breath testing, and I believe it would be helpful to remind the House of the law. The position is governed by section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. That Act enables the police to stop, at random, any motorist they choose. Having stopped a motorist, a policeman may require him to take the test if any of the ordinary three criteria exist: suspicion that the driver has alcohol in the blood, has committed a moving traffic offence, or has been involved in an accident. There is no


statutory power to require random tests, but there is a statutory power to stop at random and then, if the three ordinary criteria exist, the test may be required. That seems a sensible approach.
6.30 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) made a powerful argument in favour of some forms of technology. I know that he has a particular device in mind. This matter was addressed at some length by Dr. North in his recently published report, and I refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 350 on page 44. There are serious problems with all the devices known to and identified by Dr. North in that report, but Dr. North recommends that the Government should keep in close contact with technological developments. I entirely agree, although I am somewhat cautious about the idea that one can resolve this problem by means of technological devices.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), in a powerful speech, commended caution in making major changes in the law on Report. I agree with him. This would be a major change, and it would have been arrived at without the benefit of discussion in Committee. Therefore, I find myself strongly supporting the hon. Gentleman's argument.
Turning to the major issue of whether we should lower the threshold——

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I accept my hon. Friend's general point, but I hope that he will apply it to his own right hon. and hon. Friends. He will know that only a few days before this debate the Government introduced on Report entirely new matter dealing with DNA. My hon. Friend was wrong to do that; but he is right to say that substantial changes should not be made without Committee stages on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Hogg: As a general proposition it is desirable not to introduce major changes on Report. However, when changes are introduced on Report they often reflect detailed discussion in Committee, although they were not the subject of specific amendments there. I am only asserting a general proposition. Of course I accept that there will be exceptions to it. I shall not rise to the bait that my hon. Friend has so seductively put before me.
The threshold is the subject of the new clause. I do not think that drinking and driving mix. The conclusion to which I have come, and to which I now try to adhere in my own life, is that one cannot safely drive if one has been drinking. That is the only message that can properly be expressed. At the same time, I do not yet think it right to incorporate that view in statute.
The essential question is the point at which to set the threshold. We are divided between two propositions-50 and 80 mg——

Mr. Boyes: The Minister has said that it was not yet right. When will it be? How will he determine when it is right—when another 10,000, 20,000 or 50,000 people have been killed by drunken drivers?

Mr. Hogg: I cannot answer that question, because the law must both reflect and lead public opinion in matters of this sort. The time may come when public opinion will favour a level of alcohol concentration so low as to amount to a no-drinking rule. I put it like that because the

body produces natural alcohol levels, so a certain level must be allowed for. That time, however, has not yet come and I cannot see it coming in the near future. It may come. I do not close down the range of possibilities.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) suggested that our level of 80 mg is on the high side compared with other countries. I think that she is mistaken. It is true that a number of countries have a lower level, but many countries have the same one. I use the 1985 figures because they are the latest ones known to me. Countries which have a level similar to our own include Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Luxembourg, Spain and Switzerland.
What should we be trying to do? We need to secure a greater compliance with the law rather than to reduce the threshold. The 1986 figures show that there were about 303,000 roadside tests, of which 68 per cent. were negative. I am glad to say that the proportion of negative tests has been rising substantially. In 1983, for example, it was 58 per cent.; in 1984, it was 59 per cent.; in 1985, it was 62 per cent.; and in 1986, 68 per cent. That shows, not conclusively but encouragingly, that drivers are now getting the message that drinking and driving do not mix.
We are achieving success in this area by a process of education and persuasion. We should continue with that, rather than reduce the statutory threshold.

Sir Ian Lloyd: It would be interesting to elucidate this point. When a breathalyser test—positive or negative—is given by the police, are the police obliged to record which of the three reasons entitled them to give the test?

Mr. Hogg: I do not know the answer to that off hand. I note that the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) thinks they do not. He may well be right. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall have to write to him with an answer.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: I thank the Minister for giving way, especially as I have not been here for most of the debate.
The argument is surely not about what other countries do, or what public opinion will accept, or whether there are other means of stopping people drinking and driving; it should be about whether the level of 50 mg is significantly safer than 80 mg. The Minister should be aware, as I am, that 80 mg in the blood is a level at which it is unsafe to drive. It impairs performance significantly. Both levels impair performance, but 50 mg does so significantly less.

Mr. Hogg: The figure of 80 mg was fixed after careful research as being the point at which the risk increased sharply. I am not trying to pretend that people are not a little safer at 50 mg: they probably are. Nevertheless, 80 mg represented a considered assessment. We must take a balanced view and determine what we are trying to do. I believe that we should seek to achieve better compliance with the law before making statutory changes of the sort that have been canvassed tonight.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I shall be brief, because we want to discuss many other things tonight. I want to answer some of the points that have been raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) suggested that all who want a tightening up of the laws against drinking and driving are against drink, but


that is not so. Many people enjoy a drink and regard themselves as social and responsible drinkers, but understand from the available evidence that drinking and driving do not mix and that we have a responsibility to ensure that they do not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) mentioned the lobby that will take place tomorrow when families of victims of drunken drivers will lobby Members for stiff penalties and for tighter laws on drinking and driving. I hope that hon. Members will listen to those families and that this evening they will consider the anguish that has been caused and the avoidable deaths that have been caused. In few other areas are so many people killed in a way that is avoidable. We cannot dispute the statistics, which show that every year 1,500 or 1,600 people are killed as a result of drinking and driving.
Some Conservative Members, including the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and the Minister, talked about getting the balance right. There is little balance for the victims of drunken drivers. Their lives, and often the lives of their families, have been destroyed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), who came in late because he had been detained at a meeting, made an important point to the Minister. Although the debate has been widened to include many aspects of drinking and driving such as random breath tests, because the new clause must be seen in the context of the existing breathalyser laws, the basic point is whether the permitted blood alcohol level should be 50 or 80 mg. All the evidence that has been presented by hon. Members on both sides of the House proves that there is a significantly higher risk of accidents if people are allowed to drive with a blood alcohol level of 80 mg.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister said that the level of 80 mg was fixed in about 1967, based on the research then available? Since then considerably more research has been done and we know more about the subject. It is apparent that the danger risk level of 80 mg is far too high and that the appropriate level would be about 50 mg.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. The updated evidence from Australia and other countries supports that proposition. There is now general agreement on the matter.
In an intervention, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport said that he spends much of his time and his Department spends much money campaigning against drinking and driving. He believes that it has had some effect. That may be the case, but the £2·5 million spent by the Department of Transport recognises the problem and I hope that he will persuade his hon. Friends in government that we should go further. We should campaign, not simply to discourage people from drinking and driving, but to ensure that there is a proper limit, and we suggest that 50 mg should he that limit.
The matter gives rise to controversy among hon. Members on both sides of the House and it provokes strong feelings. The Licensing Act that the Government have just pushed through Parliament will allow people to drink throughout the day, and the pattern that has emerged in Scotland will be repeated here. The peak time for drink-related vehicle accidents will start earlier, as has

happened in Scotland. If there is to be more drinking throughout the day, we should do more about the problems created by drinking and driving. We need more than new clause 83, but it is a step in the right direction and I hope that the House will accept it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 281.

Division No. 386]
[6.43 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Alton, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Anderson, Donald
John, Brynmor


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Armstrong, Hilary
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Ashdown, Paddy
Kennedy, Charles


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lewis, Terry


Battle, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bermingham, Gerald
Loyden, Eddie


Bidwell, Sydney
McAllion, John


Blair, Tony
McAvoy, Thomas


Blunkett, David
Macdonald, Calum A.


Boyes, Roland
McFall, John


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
McKelvey, William


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McLeish, Henry


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
McTaggart, Bob


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
McWilliam, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Madden, Max


Buchan, Norman
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Callaghan, Jim
Meacher, Michael


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michael, Alun


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cartwright, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Clelland, David
Morgan, Rhodri


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Morley, Elliott


Cohen, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Corbett, Robin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cryer, Bob
Mullin, Chris


Dalyell, Tam
Murphy, Paul


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Nellist, Dave


Dixon, Don
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dobson, Frank
O'Neill, Martin


Doran, Frank
Patchett, Terry


Douglas, Dick
Pendry, Tom


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Primarolo, Dawn


Fatchett, Derek
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fearn, Ronald
Reid, Dr John


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Richardson, Jo


Fisher, Mark
Robertson, George


Foster, Derek
Rogers, Allan


Foulkes, George
Rooker, Jeff


Fyfe, Maria
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Galloway, George
Sedgemore, Brian


George, Bruce
Short, Clare


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Skinner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Gordon, Mildred
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Graham, Thomas
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Spearing, Nigel


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Steinberg, Gerry


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Strang, Gavin


Grocott, Bruce
Straw, Jack


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Haynes, Frank
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Heffer, Eric S.
Vaz, Keith


Henderson, Doug
Wall, Pat


Hinchliffe, David
Wallace, James


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Holland, Stuart
Wigley, Dafydd


Hood, Jimmy
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Howells, Geraint
Wilson, Brian


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Winnick, David






Wise, Mrs Audrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Frank Cook and


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Ken Eastham.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Emery, Sir Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Allason, Rupert
Evennett, David


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fallon, Michael


Amess, David
Favell, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Forman, Nigel


Ashby, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Ashton, Joe
Forth, Eric


Aspinwall, Jack
Franks, Cecil


Atkins, Robert
Freeman, Roger


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
French, Douglas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gardiner, George


Batiste, Spencer
Gill, Christopher


Beggs, Roy
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bendall, Vivian
Goodlad, Alastair


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gorst, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gow, Ian


Body, Sir Richard
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boswell, Tim
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Peter
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grist, Ian


Bowis, John
Ground, Patrick


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hannam, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Harris, David


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Haselhurst, Alan


Buck, Sir Antony
Hawkins, Christopher


Budgen, Nicholas
Hayes, Jerry


Burns, Simon
Hayward, Robert


Burt, Alistair
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butcher, John
Heddle, John


Butler, Chris
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Butterfill, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Holt, Richard


Carttiss, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cash, William
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunter, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Conway, Derek
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Irving, Charles


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Janman, Tim


Cran, James
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Critchley, Julian
Key, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kilfedder, James


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Curry, David
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knapman, Roger


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Day, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Devlin, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Knox, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lang, Ian


Dover, Den
Lawrence, Ivan


Dunn, Bob
Leadbitter, Ted


Durant, Tony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dykes, Hugh
Leighton, Ron





Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lightbown, David
Scott, Nicholas


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin


Malins, Humfrey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mans, Keith
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Maples, John
Steen, Anthony


Marland, Paul
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Stevens, Lewis


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stokes, Sir John


Mates, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maude, Hon Francis
Sumberg, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Summerson, Hugo


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Miller, Sir Hal
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Thorne, Neil


Moss, Malcolm
Thornton, Malcolm


Neale, Gerrard
Thurnham, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neubert, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trippier, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Turner, Dennis


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walden, George


Page, Richard
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Paice, James
Waller, Gary


Patnick, Irvine
Walters, Sir Dennis


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Ward, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pawsey, James
Warren, Kenneth


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Watts, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wells, Bowen


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wheeler, John


Portillo, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Powell, William (Corby)
Widdecombe, Ann


Price, Sir David
Wiggin, Jerry


Raffan, Keith
Wilshire, David


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Redwood, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Rhodes James, Robert
Wolfson, Mark


Riddick, Graham
Wood, Timothy


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Woodcock, Mike


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)



Roe, Mrs Marion
Tellers for the Noes:


Rowe, Andrew
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
 Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Ryder, Richard

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 84

COURT'S POWER TO ORDER SUSPENSION OF PASSPORT

`(1) Where a person is convicted for an offence punishable with imprisonment the Court by or before which he is convicted may in addition to or instead of dealing with him in


any other way disqualify him for holding or obtaining a United Kingdom passport, a British visitor's passport or a British Excursion Document.

(2) A person who is disqualified by an order of a court from holding or obtaining a United Kingdom passport, a British visitor's passport or a British Extension Document may appeal against such order in the same manner as against a conviction and the court making such order may if it thinks fit suspend the disqualification pending an appeal against the order.'—[Mr. Favell]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tony Favell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I hope not to detain the House too long because since I tabled new clause 84 the Minister with responsibility for sport. my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has announced the Government's five-point plan to combat football hooliganism. One of the proposals under consideration is to give courts the power to suspend passports in appropriate cases. Consequently, the idea has been thoroughly debated in the press, so my task made a little easier.
My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport has an extraordinarily difficult job, and he has the support of hon. Members in his task of combating football hooliganism, which we have all witnessed on television in recent weeks. The majority of those to whom I have spoken since I tabled new clause 84 have said that they are behind him in his efforts to stamp out the sort of behaviour that we have witnessed, whether or not those measures have the whole-hearted support of the football hierarchy.
Like many others, I am a keen football supporter. The fact that I regularly visit my boyhood team, Sheffield Wednesday, and also Stockport County, proves my bona fides. But the majority of football supporters are also proud of their country, and if the activities of the minority bring the country into disrepute, severe measures are warranted.
7 pm
My new clause is intended to give the courts power to suspend the passport of a convicted person in the same way that they are allowed to suspend a person's driving licence for some driving offences. If society judges that someone is not fit to drive for a set period, I see no earthly reason why a court should not decide that someone should be deprived of his British passport. The holding of a British passport is a privilege, and many would agree that it is a privilege which society has the right to withdraw.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will suggest to the House that computerisation is not sufficiently advanced to enable the authorities properly to administer any such ban, certainly in the case of British visitors' passports and excursion documents. It might be a good idea if, with the leave of the House, my hon. Friend spoke early in the debate in order to set out the Government's position.
The vast majority of the British people are worried about the activities of hooligans abroad, and it would be useful if the Minister could set out the Government's attitude to the new clause and in particular, for example, say whether the Government merely intend to delay its implementation or to introduce legislation of their own, and, if so, when we can expect it. In addition, when can we expect the passport system to be properly computerised in order to enable that legislation to be put into effect?
It might also be an idea if the problems posed by Belgium allowing British people into the country solely on proof of identity were to be addressed, and if the Belgian authorities were invited to withdraw that privilege. After the appalling disaster at the Heysel stadium, it might be a good idea for that country to have better checks on who enters.
Not only would the suspension of passports reduce the likelihood of the kind of behaviour abroad in which football hooligans indulge; it would also reduce the kind of behaviour that we have seen in tourist resorts abroad, in particular in Spain. Many will consider it an act of punishment to have a British passport withdrawn. If somebody who has indulged in violent behaviour is told that they will not be able to go abroad on holiday, so much the better. That would be a suitable punishment, as well as ensuring that our name abroad is not besmirched.
I have no doubt that the new clause, aimed at the mindless hooligan, will be opposed by some libertarians—the same mindless libertarians who, in the 1960s, extolled the virtues of a permissive society, of which we are now reaping the bitter harvest. The indiscipline that was then introduced into schools when freedom of expression took away the power of teachers properly to punish, as well as the lack of a proper curriculum, is now leading to the indiscipline of those teenagers.
Those libertarians have had their day. Now it is the turn of those interested in a different type of freedom. It is now the turn of those who want the freedom to enjoy our national game of football at home and abroad, free from bad language, obscene gestures and violence. The time has now come for those who do not attend football matches but live near grounds to be able to enjoy a Saturday with their families free from fear of drunken louts damaging their property or worse. The turn has now come for those who want to enjoy their annual holidays in Majorca, Benidorm or on the Costa Brava, free from shame at the activities of their countrymen who don clothes bearing the Union Jack and then drag it through the mud. I commend my new clause to the House.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am glad to be able to intervene in the debate in favour of what the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) is suggesting, although certainly not accepting the logic at the end of his speech. It is not apparent to me that the difficulties with which we are dealing, of evil-minded people misbehaving at home or abroad, at football matches or on beaches, can necessarily be put down to the changes in society about which he talked. He was unwise to take that line.
Such a simplistic view encourages people such as me to remind the House that three years ago the Prime Minister sent for all the football authorities. The propaganda machine at No. 10 Downing street put out the fact that the Prime Minister was now in charge of matters relating to football hooliganism and all would now be dealt with satisfactorily. That, pre-eminently, has not been the case. It would be simplistic for me now to say that the Prime Minister, not the leaders of football, should be resigning for failing to carry out the promise that she made to the nation two years ago. I do not want to go that far. I want only to refute the hon. Gentleman's equally ludicrous proposition.
There is one deficiency in the new clause, and that is that it does not tell us how offenders abroad will be dealt with. As I understand it, the new clause deals exclusively


with proceedings before British courts. It may well be that people who come before British courts are a threat to peace and order overseas and should be dealt with, but that is not immediately obvious from the new clause.
An even greater deficiency is that the new clause does not enable people who cause trouble overseas to be dealt with by the British courts or to have their passports or other documents removed, as many of us would wish, if they have committed grave offences overseas.

Mr. Favell: I recognise that the new clause deals merely with those people convicted of offences in Britain. Clearly, it would be more difficult to deal with offences that are committed abroad and, in particular, to give courts abroad power to withdraw British passports or, alternatively, for courts here to deal with offences that have been dealt with abroad. That does not mean to say that I rule that out or do not accept it. If the Government or the Opposition can find a way of dealing with that, they will have my vote.

Mr. Howell: It is good to know that the hon. Gentleman will bow to superior wisdom when it is forthcoming from the Opposition Benches or elsewhere. However, he will accept that it is illogical to suggest that, because someone has been convicted of an offence in the British courts, we should assume that he will commit an offence abroad and therefore we should withdraw his passport. It may well be that that will happen, but that is not automatically the case.
I want to ask the Minister several questions about our recent troubles. I start by reminding the House that at the same time as the Minister with responsibility for sport was in Germany having a look at the evil-doing of a few young people there—the majority of people there were well behaved, but a minority of people caused some serious disorder and it is important to understand the numbers involved—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was in Spain discussing with the Spanish Government the equally abhorrent activities of some British subjects on Spanish beaches and in Spanish bars. I make that point because we are dealing with a social disease that has nothing to do with football.
This weekend in the Birmingham papers there was a headline about football hooligans going on the rampage and 50 Leicester city supporters being arrested. Last week we had people from Leamington Spa and Warwick, and it was said that that was because there was no football for them to go to. These activities have nothing to do with football, but unfortunately football is one of the ways through which these people pursue their activities.
I believe that it would be sensible to improve the computerisation of the Home Office. If the Minister tells us that these things cannot be done yet, because Home Office computers are not sufficiently sophisticated to track down the holder of a passport or a travel document, I am sure that the whole House will say that he should get on and do something about improving the computerisation. A police officer in a motor car can be in touch with the Swansea computer and ask a motorist 30 seconds later why he is driving a car that is not registered in his name. That is the sophisticated computerisation available to the police in transport matters. Surely the Home Office ought by now to be moving in that direction.
If one of the Home Office's points is that it is willing to consider this as soon as it can be put into practical effect, that is to be welcomed, and it will certainly be welcomed by me. In the meantime, however, other things ought to be happening.
One thing astonished me about the difficulties recently encountered with a few hundred people in Germany. The German police locked them up, sobered them up and let them out again. I find that quite incredible. I would like to know what sort of arrangements the Government had with the German authorities with regard to sending back here as soon as possible the people who were causing difficulties and offence in Germany.
That can be done and, indeed, was done in the course of my experience. On one occasion, having no authority, as far as I know, to do any such thing, when I was the Minister with responsibility for sport and an important match was being played on the continent, I liaised with my colleague, the Dutch Minister for Sport, and said that anybody going to the match without a ticket, hotel accommodation and proper travel supervision ought not to be allowed into his country. As a result, the Dutch authorities allowed in everybody who had a ticket and told all those who had not got tickets that they had better get back on the boat and come back here. It was a very successful operation. I do not know whether any such operation has been contemplated by the present Government.

Sir Neil Macfarlane: I think that the right hon. Gentleman and I have probably shared some similar experiences during the past couple of decades. European history over the past 20 years is littered with examples of European police forces surrounding a number of our so-called football fans, putting them in cells for the night and then getting them out of the country as quickly as possible without a conviction. That is the underlying problem. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that once there has been a conviction, there is the basis for some harmonisation with our European colleagues in getting that conviction endorsed on the passport.

Mr. Howell: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is necessary to have a conviction. If the continental police practice is to round up people on suspicion without producing a conviction, I agree that it adds to the difficulties. Perhaps we might suggest to them, now that we are all in the European Community and Ministers meet from time to time, that our practices ought to be co-ordinated as soon as possible.

Mr. Ashton: Why is it necessary to have a conviction? Surely something could be written in the back of the passport indicating that the holder was detained overnight. When we had currency regulations many years ago, written in the back of one's passport was how much foreign currency one had drawn. If this was written in the passport, a ticket to travel abroad would not be issued.

Mr. Howell: I am sufficiently keen to protect civil liberties in this country not to want people to be sent away just because the police are suspicious of them. I would not endorse the idea of any such thing being entered in a passport without a conviction.
If continental police procedures are not as precise in this respect as ours, they ought to be brought into line with ours. That would enable us to reach agreement.
When Aston Villa, to which club I am addicted, played in the European cup final, I was involved in taking several thousand people to Rotterdam. We took them there and brought them back without the slightest problem from any one of them. We did it by organising the travel, hotel arrangements and stewarding arrangements in a sensible way. West Midlands police officers gave up their time. We put them in a yellow coach which could be easily identified. We took many of them over beforehand to liaise with the Rotterdam police. It was a tremendous success.
I understand that on this occasion the Home Office refused to do any such thing with the England supporters. I cannot understand why the Home Office refused to repeat what had been a very successful operation. It is quite clear that when we are playing abroad there has to be a degree of supervision, for the protection of our decent supporters and the good name of this country. I urge that example on the Government, while they are getting their computers into good order to carry out a more detailed arrangement. It is possible to take people abroad and bring them back here without difficulties, and we owe it to our European partners to do that if it is possible.
I understand that this recent operation, for some reason that escapes me, was put in the hands of the chief of police of British Transport. I read that he asked for the same facility of having policemen travelling and was refused by the Home Office. If so, it is very much to be regretted. It was obviously a contributory factor in these disorders.

Mr. David Evans: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the public perception is that hooliganism is football's responsibility? I do not say that it is; indeed, I believe that it is not. The public perception here and abroad is that we export trouble. Unfortunately for us, some who say they are football fans and who go abroad—at the moment we have no way of identifying whether they are football fans—misbehave and bring out the worst in German, Dutch and other European hooligans. It is then hung around the necks of our people.
I believe that, until we can prove to the Europeans that we have put our house in order and are prepared to be determined, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) has suggested, and until we remove people's passports and make the punishment fit the crime, every time our people go on holiday and misbehave and bring out the worst in those who live in the countries in question, the blame will be hung around the necks of the British people, and our flag, as one of my hon. Friends said the other day, will be dragged through the gutters of Europe. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that public perception here and abroad is that we export trouble?

Mr. Howell: I have to say very gently to the hon. Gentleman that his activities as chairman of Luton Town football club in assuming that every visiting supporter is going to cause trouble have not helped us to deal with this matter. The hon. Gentleman is quite honest. As the chairman of Luton Town football club he has said, "I will not have a single decent citizen, supporting any club in the land, come to my club, Luton." That is what he is saying and the logic of carrying that further is that no decent English football supporter should be allowed to support England abroad.
That approach runs away from the problem. It should be opposed on grounds of civil liberties. It is a monstrous attack on the 99 per cent. of decent football supporters in this country. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman went down that road, but I am glad that Luton Town football club is moving back to a more civilised position in believing that supporters of two clubs can come together to enjoy the game—I hesitate to say, "having a drink and then driving off," in view of the debate that we have just had. Nevertheless, they could enjoy a good social occasion——

Mr. Favell: rose——

Mr. David Evans: rose——

Mr. Howell: I give way to the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), which is only fair because I am disagreeing with him.

Mr. Evans: I advise the right hon. Gentleman that Luton Town football club allowed away fans for about 100 years, but in the last year that we had away fans we had 113 arrests and six stabbings. However, in the last two seasions, when it has been a members-only club, we have not had a single arrest or stabbing inside or outside the ground. I do not believe that people's liberty, privacy and right to carry on their ordinary business in and around a football ground on a Saturday afternoon should be restricted by the hooligan elements of any away supporters.

Mr. Howell: I am glad to tell the House that Aston Villa football club in my constituency has not had any stabbings for several years and it allows visiting supporters. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's logic. I am sorry if there have been any such difficulties at Luton, but we do not solve the difficulties by trying to abolish people's right to attend a football match.
I should like to return to the question of computers and those difficulties with which I have already dealt. I hope that the Minister will say that he at least does not object to that matter, because in previous debates in the House, Ministers have said that they find removing the passports of people who are convicted and who are known to have caused trouble objectionable in principle. There is no logic in that argument. The courts of this land remove passports from people every day of the week and do so before people have been found guilty of anything. Many such people have only been charged, but they are required to surrender their passports as a condition of bail. Therefore, there can be no objection in principle to taking away somebody's passport.
One of the propaganda myths that was put out from No. 10 and by the Minister with responsibility for sport was that that cannot be done because we are now in the European Community and everybody has a right to travel within Europe. I am a president of the European Movement and am as strong a supporter of the Community as anyone in the House. I want to protect our European partners from the evildoers that we might be exporting to them. It is up to us to find a sensible way of doing that, and I suggest that one way would be the removal of passports.
I should like to make another point in this short debate, which I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stockport for initiating. It has now been suggested that the Minister with responsibility for sport will present a Bill to the Cabinet.
We are told in the weekend press that he has been invited to attend the Cabinet meeting on Thursday to defend his proposals. One of his two proposals is that we should have compulsory membership cards and that nobody should be allowed to go to a football match in this land unless he is a registered member of a football club. The Minister even threatened to extend that to rugby and boxing. If it were extended to boxing, we would not have boxing matches such as that on Saturday at Luton Town football ground. I hope that it was profitable. I do not know——

Mr. David Evans: Do not believe everything that appears in the press.

Mr. Howell: I do know that if the Minister with responsibility for sport had his way and if one had to be registered in a membership scheme before attending a boxing match, whatever the attendance at the boxing match at Luton Town football ground on Saturday, it would have been halved.
Membership schemes are nonsense. They are totally impractical, and I hope that Home Office Ministers realise that. It is impractical to say that people cannot attend football matches without being registered on a membership scheme. What could one do in a place such as Wembley where the cup final is held and where about 100,000 tickets are sold? How can it be right for a son to say to his father who comes to stay with him for Christmas, "I am sorry, Dad. I can't take you to the football match because I haven't registered you as a member of the local club."? If such schemes come about, there will be a tremendous amount of deception, and the effect on football as a whole will be serious.
The idea is grossly offensive. When the Minister responsible for sport gives us the statistics—that is, unless a Home Office Minister can give them—we should ask how many thousands of matches were played in this country in the past year and at how many of those matches there were serious problems of any sort. The answer would be minuscule in terms of percentages. That being the case, it is quite wrong to impose a membership scheme. The best way forward is that suggested by the hon. Member for Stockport: to identify the culprits, stop them going to football matches and remove their passports.

Mr. Ashton: rose——

Mr. Howell: I have another point to make, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ashton: I should like to give my right hon. Friend the figures because he is making an excellent case. There were over 4,000 first-class professional games last season and at only eight was there any trouble inside the ground.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The debate is almost widening out into a general debate on football hooliganism. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) will now address himself to the narrower point with which the new clause deals.

Mr. Howell: This is the Second Reading of the new clause and although I always bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it seems to me that on a Second Reading we can deal not only with what is in the new clause but what is left out of it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. I advise the right hon. Gentleman and the House that there is a difference between a Second Reading debate and the Second Reading of a new clause. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will now address himself to the content of the new clause.

Mr. Howell: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I always do, and am now coming to my last point. However, I am sorry if that is our procedure. If it is, I think that we should change it. It is clear to me that a new clause, which is being added to a Bill, should receive the same Second Reading treatment as is given to the Bill itself. I am sorry that I did not fully appreciate the position.
I come now to my last point which is germane to this issue. The Home Secretary and the Minister responsible for sport are now threatening English football and saying that they will have to consider whether English teams should be allowed to play again in international competitions abroad. They are doing that because they do not have this new clause, or anything like it to deal with the offenders. You will see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this point is extremely pertinent to the proposal. It is monstrous to suggest that the English football team should be prevented from playing in international matches. That would totally destroy any international respect that we have. It would also destroy the standards of excellence that every sport must have if it is to inspire other people to attain such standards at all levels.
In advance of the attendance of the Minister with responsibility for sport at the Cabinet meeting on Thursday, I should like to convey to him the thoughts of Opposition Members and, indeed, all involved in football. I suggest that if football is to be treated in that way, the Government should not do it by intimidating the football authorities. They will need to introduce a Bill. It is a monstrous proposal that any sport should be prevented by the Government from competing internationally. It would be monstrous in social terms and outrageous, as it would be an admission by the Government that they are unable to control the disease with which they have been dealing during their 10 years in office, apparently so unsuccessfully. I hope that we hear no more of that nonsense and that we return to the practical issue of identifying and dealing with offenders, taking out court orders to prevent them from going to football matches and removing passports or travel documents from those wanting to go abroad.

Mr. Lawrence: We all agree that football hooliganism is a disgrace to us here at home and a shame to Britain when it takes place abroad. I have received more letters and representations about it than I received about capital punishment.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) says that football hooliganism has nothing to do with football. It is a little difficult to accept that statement, as it clearly has a great deal to do with football. Football triggers off that violence. A great deal of violence might well happen elsewhere if there were not football matches, but a great deal of it would not happen but for football matches. It does not advance the matter further, therefore, to say consistently that it has absolutely nothing to do with football.

Mr. Denis Howell: In that case, how does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that the rampaging Leicester city supporters in Warwick and Leamington last week could be said to have anything to do with football, when we are in the closed season?

Mr. Lawrence: They were Leicester city supporters. It is difficult to think with what else they could have anything to do, if not a football club.
We can deal with hooliganism here in Britain by banning drink from football grounds, by reducing the availability of alcohol outside football grounds on football days, by better policing and better control by means of video cameras and crowd separation—all of which we are now doing—and by membership-only admission. The right hon. Gentleman says that that is madness and that it cannot work, but we have living proof of the success of a membership scheme with an outstanding club. Clearly, that can be extended in the future.

Mr. David Evans: My hon. and learned Friend may be interested to know that, since we had a membership scheme at Luton and crime at the ground disappeared, there has been no increase in crime in Hertfordshire or Bedfordshire on Saturday afternoons.

Mr. Lawrence: That underlines my point, and shows that there is mileage in that membership scheme. It is of course true that it requires some deprivation of freedom, that it is infuriating, and that it might mean that some of our children cannot go to football matches. Unfortunately, that is the price that must be paid for football matches to which people can go without fear and trepidation.
We also have the power of the courts in this country to award stiffer sentences for football hooliganism. We can deal with football hooliganism in Britain, but we cannot deal with it abroad. It is a great shame when people go abroad, say that they are the representatives of Britain and then smash their way around the towns and countryside of our friends and the countries with which we want to live in peace, contentment and happiness. That is the disgrace and shame, and we can do nothing about that.
Most of us would like to see the offenders abroad arrested, imprisoned and the key thrown away, but that is not happening. The Germans do not appear keen to arrest, charge and imprison those offenders. Our shame is therefore heightened by the press publicity that those people court. We have seen the most atrocious, boasting representation of the British flag in all its offensive horror.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) has introduced his proposal in that context. If we could do something to stop the thugs travelling abroad and disgracing Britain by this measure, if it is practicable and enforceable, everyone would agree that it would be a sensible step forward. I appreciate that we can sometimes go to other European countries without a passport: that is a problem. There is no point in taking away someone's passport if he or she does not need it to go to a certain country.
That is where the agreement with other countries comes in. There is no reason why those countries should not agree to require, if not a passport, a document, to be shown to them. If a person does not have that document or passport, he or she could be refused entry. That is the very measure proposed by my hon. Friend. It is not a deterrent

measure here, but it is a deterrent measure abroad, because people would not be so freely allowed to travel abroad to cause their mayhem.
I recognise that that would represent a limitation of that individual's civil liberties. Such liberties are vital and could so easily be lost. We must defend them. However, in this case, we are dealing with people who have been convicted of violent crime and who would thereby forfeit their rights to full civil liberties. We are more entitled to make them forfeit their right to a passport or a travel document when they have been convicted than we are to make them forfeit their right to it while they are on bail and innocent until proved guilty.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath: there is no great principle here. Besides, those people have a choice not to do evil and to preserve their liberties, or to engage in deliberate thuggery and thereby forfeit the rights which they are entitled to enjoy only if they conduct themselves as decent, law-abiding representatives of Britain. I do not think that the civil liberties argument is all that convincing.
My hon. Friend the Minister may say that we are not yet ready, that the technology is not yet good enough, that there are not sufficient data banks and that we have not yet produced the document that would allow that to be enforced. He may be right, hut that is no reason why we should not give the Secretary of State power, by regulation, to introduce that prohibition as soon as the technology catches up.
If technology in that area is moving as fast as in every other area, we would probably implement such a power through regulation a great deal sooner than we have implemented other powers, not just in legislation generally, but particularly in Home Office legislation. I would be disappointed if my hon. Friend the Minister were so shy on this occasion as to say that we are not yet ready, and therefore that we should not do it.
If we add the new clause, or something like it in the other place, to the Bill, the Government will be seen to be taking a step to deal with this sad and humiliating problem. It would certainly delight a number of my electors in Burton, which has a good football team—alas, it has not yet reached league status, although we are hopeful. It would certainly do more than any other measure to check the movement of football hooliganism from Britain abroad, which brings so much shame to this country.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) on giving us the opportunity to discuss ways in which we might deal with football hooliganism. I do not agree with his solution. I consider it to be impracticable. Also, it fails to address the meat or the nub of the problem.
I was first taken to a football match when I was six years old. I watched the team in the town in which I was brought up, Burnley, beating the team of which the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Evans) is now chairman. That was in 1954. From about the age of eight onwards, I was allowed to go and watch football matches, walking to and from the ground on my own and watching the match on my own. No one had any fears that I might be molested or injured. That was at a time when the team which I followed, Burnley, was far and away the best team in the English league and was winning the first division.
Much has changed since those days. I took two of my daughters to watch, alas, a fourth division match between Burnley and Wigan Athletic a couple of years ago. Although the crowd was down from the 25,000 of the 1950s to about 2,000 in the 1980s, it was nothing like as pleasant a scene when it came to the behaviour of those in the ground.
There is no doubt that great thuggery has come to, or at least near, our football grounds. It is thuggery equalled only by the thuggishness of the headline writers of some of the popular newspapers. Those hooligans who travel abroad and cause mayhem in the bars of Dusseldorf and other European cities take comfort whenever they see a headline in The Sun or the Star which extols their thuggishness. The headline writers should realise that, when they use intemperate language and give banner headlines to what has happened, it is in a perverted way encouraging the hooligans to indulge themselves in further hooliganism.
I do not accept the thesis that football is responsible for football hooliganism. When I used to go as a young boy to Turf Moor to watch Burnley football club, hooligans had already been invented. In those days, though, they were tearing up the seats in the Odeon cinema when "Jailhouse Rock" was being shown, and later "Expresso Bongo". A few years after that, those with the same temperament had given up destroying cinema seats. They had not reached football grounds, but they were buying themselves secondhand Vespas and Lambrettas and fighting on the seafronts in the riots of mods and rockers. Hooliganism is not new. It happens, however, to be the misfortune of the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield and the rest of us who, in our smaller way, support football that hooliganism, for the time being, is attacking our enjoyment of the greatest national sport.
Nor is hooliganism an especially British problem. We should not beat our breasts and say, "Alas, football hooliganism is a British disease." The Dutch have football hooligans, and seriously so. The Italians have football hooligans. Although there was disgraceful behaviour at the Heysel stadium by British football supporters, Italian supporters were committing crimes there as well. There are football hooligans in France. In the past two or three weeks, we have seen the hooligans of organised, peaceful and thorough Germany provoking British hooligans.
This hooliganism does not have a great deal to do with football. At any time in society there are those who are bent towards violence, who will find violence wherever it can be obtained. We should be trying to solve the problem of how to deal with hooliganism in general. We should not be beating the football clubs for something for which they are not really to blame.
If anyone goes to the Liverpool football ground or, as I did earlier in the past season, to a match at Goodison Park, the Everton football ground—I am talking about the larger grounds—he will find the best organisation that can possibly be arranged, and little hooliganism. Even grounds where visiting supporters are permitted to attend can be organised in a way that avoids hooliganism within them. We have already heard statistics that there is little hooliganism actually at football matches.

Mr. Boyes: As someone who watches football every week of his life, may I ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees that the nasty trend in football is racism? At many football matches, a black player who is a member of the opposing team will be taunted mercilessly throughout the game. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's main thesis that a hooligan is a hooligan, and that we should not use the term "football hooligan". One of the problems, however, is that the National Front, with its vicious Right-wing attitudes, has latched on to many football clubs and stirred up trouble inside the ground and outside with the crowds. There are laws to deal with racists and other such people, and it would help if the police would deal with this problem urgently.

Mr. Carlile: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He will know that many of the finest footballers in Europe—England, France, Holland and many others—are black. Those of us who enjoy football go to watch them rather than many of the home-grown players. It is outrageous that there should be racism at football matches, and it should be dealt with urgently, but that is not quite the problem that I am seeking to address.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is remarkable that, although the National Front and other Fascist groups have been organising on the football terraces for a long time, we never read any articles in the newspapers to the effect that "Fascist hooligans" have disgraced Britain? For some reason, the Fascists appear to be protected by the newspapers.
It was only after the Heysel stadium incident, when the Belgian media talked about the British Fascists, and when in Germany these hooligans raised their arms in the Hitler salute, which is illegal in Germany, that mention was made of these activities in our press. After that mention, these matters were quickly covered up. The blame is not attached to the instigators of the violence, who are deliberately spreading it.

Mr. Carlile: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will not allow himself to be diverted fron the new clause by the interventions which have been made.

Mr. Carlile: I shall not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely express the hope that everyone in the House is opposed to racism at any sort of sports fixture. I hope also that the police, and the clubs, will take appropriate action.
I was saying that the problem of hooliganism is not especially British and that it does not affect football alone.

Mr. Favell: The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that I explained that the clause was directed to anyone who indulges in violence and not only to football hooliganism. It seeks to deal with anyone who besmirches our name abroad. Against that background, will he explain why he opposes the new clause?

Mr. Carlile: I was trying to get to that, but I was diverted.
I do not believe that forbidding the people to travel is the right solution. The way to prevent hooliganism is to show hooligans that the courts are both ready and able


realistically to deal with their hooliganism. It must be shown too that hooliganism can be detected effectively, and I applaud the measures that have been taken within football grounds.
There is some evidence, unfortunately, that when football hooligans are caught as a result of video detection and taken before the local magistrates court, extremely paltry penalties are imposed upon them. There are still cases of hooligans being fined for offences of personal violence at football grounds. That seems entirely inappropriate when football is a sport which we hope that we can enjoy with our families.
It is not only the British courts that have to deal with these offences. I urge the Minister to take every possible step to ensure that the courts in other countries with which we have frequent sporting relations, especially other EC countries, prosecute and sentence British hooligans. It should be permissible for the criminal record which a British subject has acquired in a foreign country to be included in his criminal record in the United Kingdom.
That would mean that, when a British court came to deal with a hooligan, it would be able to take into account the entirety of his character and antecedents, including what has happened abroad. Sometimes, foreign convictions appear on an antecedent form, but there is no means of ensuring that that happens. British courts would be substantially strengthened in sentencing the British hooligans if they could refer expressly to the fact that the hooligans had been previously convicted in some other country, and thus could justify stiffer sentences.
Forbidding travel will not have any real impact on the problem. There is a world of difference in terms of administrative problems between removing the passports of people on bail—a small numerical group—and dealing with the generality of the issue of passports. I have considerable doubts about whether the proposed system can be made to work so that it cannot be easily avoided by those bent on hooliganism.
Football is blamed for what has been happening, but in the past weeks at the matches in the European championship in Germany, there was virtually no serious hooliganism within the grounds. There was much hooliganism outside the grounds—in the bars, pubs and clubs—but there was little evidence that the people involved had been to any matches. This reinforces my point that people will be hooligans wherever their hooliganism can be paraded. That is another reason why we should take a European view of the problem and try to ensure that we have as near as possible common standards of prosecution, conviction and sentencing.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) on this imaginative new clause to cure a vile social disease. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said, this problem causes our country great humiliation. Indeed, I think that he said that it was a humiliating problem. The new clause seeks to deal with vandals, hooligans, muggers and one of the lower forms of criminal pestilence which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport would not mind including in his description, the graffiti artist. My hon. Friend hopes to deal with such offences, whether at home or overseas.
My hon. Friend suggested that the problem can be dealt with by the removal of passports for a period. He wants to do what many of us want to do—to punish people. He

wants to prevent offences from taking place and, at the same time, where possible, to keep people out of prison. Putting people in prison when that can be avoided is not only expensive but, much worse, extremely barbaric, and it leads people to a criminal career later. If we can prevent that, let us do so.
It is suggested that we withdraw passports. We want to prevent people from travelling. We live in a modern and enlightened society, and I think I can say that there is no hon. Member more modern and enlightened than me. I suggest that this intention to prevent travel, if allied to a little humiliation, could have very much the effect that my hon. Friend wants. It might even be more effective than his suggestion.
If we want to stop the wrong people from travelling to a major European fixture, to stop people from going to and disrupting the local derby and to stop people from upsetting and disturbing others and causing violence at a cup match, we should clap them in the stocks for two hours if they have committed offences before. We may take away their passports as well if we like, but if they are in the stocks every Saturday afternoon there is no way they can go to a football match.
I do not want my remarks to be taken out of context. This is not a barbaric suggestion. We live in a modern and enlightened society and there are ways of devising a form of stocks. At the same time, we can prevent those so sentenced from being subjected to having wet objects hurled at them—[Interruption.] I am a great fan of my hon. Friend the Minister. He is not a wet object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not be tempted by the Treasury Bench. I am sure that he realises that there is not a word about stocks in the new clause.

Mr. Marlow: Quite right, Sir. I am always tempted by the Treasury Bench. I welcome the new clause. We must find a civilised way of dealing with the problem.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is perhaps a slight extension of the punishment in the community that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has in mind.
I have considerable sympathy with the arguments deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell). In common with every hon. Member who has spoken, I recognise that the problems that we saw abroad recently are a cause for grave concern among us all. It is right that we should pay careful attention to any proposal that might be an appropriate response to this problem. For that reason, on 16 June, when replying to a private notice question, my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport said that the Government would look carefully at the kind of proposal that is enshrined in the new clause, and we shall certainly do that.
One theme running through the debate has been the need for those countries where the offences are committed to punish and sentence the offenders to a period of imprisonment there, if that is appropriate. My hon. Friend the Minister of State shares that view. Last week, when. in Lisbon attending a meeting of European Ministers of Justice, he took advantage of the opportunity to say to his colleagues that they had a duty to ensure that people who committed offences under foreign jurisdictions were dealt with under those jurisdictions and, where appropriate,


imprisoned in those countries. That is an effective response to the problem of hooligans committing hooligan offences overseas.
Although I have considerable sympathy with the thinking behind the new clause, I could not recommend its incorporation into the Bill. There is a prerogative power to deny a passport, but it is used sparingly, and I think that the House would agree that it should be used sparingly. There is no doubt that the restriction on a person's ability to travel overseas is a curtailment of liberty. The House and the Government have not yet had an opportunity to reach a settled conclusion on this matter. At some stage we shall have to ask ourselves seriously whether this is a diminution of liberty that we favour. The argument is evenly balanced, and neither the Government nor the House has yet reached a final view. We must recognise that we are discussing a grave matter.
There are two problems associated with the new clause so ably moved by my hon. Friend. First, some practical questions must be asked, because they are not resolved in the drafting of the clause. I say that, not in a spirit of criticism, but simply to draw to the attention of the House the fact that these problems exist. For example, should the period of disqualification be time-limited? Should there be a right for a person disqualified from having a passport to apply to the court on the grounds of compassionate need to go abroad? Should we create an offence of applying for a passport during the period of disqualification? Should we give the court the power to impose a period of disqualification on conviction abroad by a court with foreign jurisdiction? Those practical questions have to be examined and answered, and they are not addressed in the new clause. For those reasons alone, I cannot commend the new clause to the House.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) fully covered the matter of enforcement. At the moment about 2 million British passports are issued each year by about 1,500 post offices. In addition, ferry companies issue a document called a "no passport excursion card". Until we have an effective database, we cannot enforce a disqualification of the kind that we are discussing.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) raised the matter of computerisation. I am glad to be able to tell him that we are soon to start a computerisation programme for the passport department and I hope that it will be completed by the end of 1989. When that happens we will be in a very much better position to enforce the sort of period disqualification that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport may have in mind.
My hon. Friend's proposition requires serious consideration, but it also raises fundamental questions that we must consider before we can come to a conclusion on the new clause. It raises practical problems which it does not seek to resolve. At the moment there are insuperable problems of enforcement. For all those reasons, I cannot commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Favell: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. I urge the Government seriously to consider my suggestion. I accept that it would be a severe curtailment of liberty, but that is precisely what it is intended to be

—a novel form of punishment that may well suit the crime. I accept that there are difficulties about the drafting. We shall need to think carefully about that.
I also accept that the Government are not yet ready to implement the proposals in the new clause because of the problems of computerisation. I was glad to hear that the Government expect to have the appropriate data base ready by the end of next year. Perhaps careful thought should be given to whether to introduce legislation of this kind so as to be ready for that data base. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

SCOPE OF PART I

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 2, line 8, after 'procedures', insert—
`under this Part of this Act'.

8 pm

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35.

Mr. John Patten: These are drafting amendments aimed at futher clarifying the scope of part I of the Bill, and I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 2, line 15, leave out from 'in' to end of line 16 and insert 'accordance with those procedures'.

No. 34, in page 2, line 24, at end insert—
`and relating to the operation of this Part of this Act'.

No. 35, in page 2, line 27, leave out from 'arrangements' to 'with' in line 28 and insert—
`relating to the operation of this Part of this Act in Particular cases (in this Part of this Act referred to as "special extradition arrangements") made'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 4

EXTRADITION REQUEST AND AUTHORITY TO PROCEED

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 5, line 44, at end insert—
`( ) The High Court of Justiciary may, by Act of Adjournal, make rules as to the procedure for service under subsection (2) above in Scotland.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 61, 62 and 63.

Mr. John Patten: These amendments are essential to permit rules to be made for Scottish courts under Scottish law relating to the procedure for the service of documents and extension of the period between issue of a warrant and actual extradition. I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

ARREST FOR PURPOSES OF COMMITTAL

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 188, in page 6, line 11, leave out
'a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate or by'
and insert—


'(i) the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate or metropolitan stipendiary magistrate designated for the purposes of this Part of this Act by the Lord Chancellor; or
(ii)'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 189, 190 and 191.

Mr. Patten: The purpose of these amendments is to embody in law the present arrangement by which extradition cases in England and Wales are dealt with at Bow street by specialist magistrates. The present references in clauses 5 and 6 to "a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate" goes wider than this. It is right for the House to recognise that Bow street magistrates court will quite rightly remain the centre for extradition committals. I know that all practitioners in extradition, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), will continue to expect extradition cases to be dealt with as at present by the chief metropolitan magistrate, Sir David Hopkin, and his magisterial colleagues and for advice to continue to be given by the learned clerk at Bow street, Mrs. Ferley. For this reason the amendments replace the term "a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate" with references to
the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate or metropolitan stipendiary magistrate designated for the purposes of this Part of this Act by the Lord Chancellor".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

PROCEEDINGS FOR COMMITTAL

Amendment made: No. 189, in page 6, line 43, leave out `a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate' and insert
`the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate or a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate designated as mentioned in section 5(1) (a) above'—[Mr. John Patten.]

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 253, in page 7, line 42, leave out from 'court' to `unless' in line 44.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government Amendments Nos. 254, to 259, 275, 260 to 264, 276, 265 to 271 and 277.

Mr. Patten: These amendments cover quite a lot of paper but they make only technical, albeit essential, changes to the committal and appeals provisions of the Bill. I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 254, in page 7, line 49, at end insert—
`(8A) if the court commits a person under subsection (8) above, it shall issue a certificate of the offence against the law of the United Kingdom which would be constituted by his conduct.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 7

STATEMENT OF CASE BY COURT

Amendments made: No. 255, in page 8, line 17, at end insert—
`(1A) If the state seeking his surrender immediately informs the court of committal that it intends to make such an application, the court shall make an order providing for his detention, or direction that he shall not be released except on bail.

(1B) Rules of Court may specify—

(a) a period within which a state must make
such an application unless the Court grants a longer period; and
(b) a period within which the court of committal must comply with such an application.'.

No. 256, in page 8, line 18, leave out
`refuses to state a case'
and insert
`of committal fails to comply with an application under subsection (1) above within the period specified in Rules of Court'.

No. 257, in page 8, line 30, at end insert—
'(4A) An order made by a metropolitan magistrate under subsection (IA) above shall cease to have effect if
(a) the court dismisses the appeal in respect of the offence or all the offences to which it relates; and
(b) the state seeking surrender does not immediately
(i) apply for leave to appeal to the House of Lords; or
(ii) inform the court that it intends to apply for leave.

(4B) An order made by the sheriff of Lothian and Borders under subsection (1A) above shall cease to have effect if the court dismisses the appeal in respect of the offence or all the offences to which it relates.'.

No. 258, in page 8, line 31, leave out subsection (5).

No. 259, in page 8, line 39, at end insert—

'(6A) The House of Lords may exercise any powers of the High Court under subsection (3) above and subsection (4) above shall apply to them as it applies to that Court.

(6B) Subject to subsections (4A) and (4B) above, an order under subsection (IA) above shall have effect so long as the case is pending.

(6C) For the purposes of this section cases pending (unless proceedings are discontinued) until (disregarding any power of a court to grant leave to take any step out of time) there is no step that the foreign state can take.'.

No. 275, in page 8, leave out line 40 and insert—

`(7) In the application to Scotland of this section, subsections (6) and (6A) shall be omitted and, in'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 9

ORDER FOR RETURN TO REQUESTING STATE

Amendments made; No. 61, in page 10, line 14, after `as', insert—
`(a) in England and Wales,'.

No. 62, in page 10, line 15, after '1981', insert
`or
(b) in Scotland, the High Court of Justiciary by Act of Adjournal'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Mr. Worthington: I beg to move amendment No. 203, in page 11, line 1, leave out `may decide not to' and insert `shall not'.
The intention of the amendment is to withdraw from the Home Secretary the discretion whether someone should be extradited to a country where the death penalty is still in force. We seek to say that, instead of the Home Secretary having a discretion to decide not to extradite to a country where the death penalty is still in force, he shall not extradite to such a country.
Since dealing with this issue in Committee we have had a further debate on capital punishment in the House. The views of the House on capital punishment have become even firmer and go further along the line of saying that there will not be capital punishment in Britain again. That is a statement of morality, and it seems that that theme has evoked a Pavlovian response from Conservative Members, with which we have become familiar. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady has a contribution to make, I hope that she will stand up and make it.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I point out that whenever a survey is done, the British people show that they infinitely prefer the restoration of capital punishment for their own safety. The death penalty is never abolished. One takes it out of the calm consideration of the courthouse and puts it in the hands of the police, who must go armed because criminals go armed. No criminal went armed 20 years ago. Today, arms are a standard item of criminal equipment.

Mr. Worthington: I shall not be enticed into restaging the capital punishment debate. I seek to reflect the firm view of the House that there should not be capital punishment in this country. The arguments that have convinced the House should also apply in considering whether it is appropriate to extradite somebody to a country where capital punishment is practised. The House has decided that there is a uniqueness and repulsiveness about the death penalty and that we do not wish to see it in a civilised country.
We recognise that mistakes can be made, even in a country with good standards of justice. It is even more perilous to extradite people to countries which do not have the same standards of justice. We must not take a Pontius Pilate attitude to that and say that it is not for us to decide whether someone should receive the death penalty in another country. We have to take the stance that it is not acceptable for a citizen of our country to be extradited to another that maintains the death penalty.
Article 11 of the European convention on extradition is quite interesting in this respect. It states:
If the offence for which extradition is requested is punishable by death … and if in respect of such offence the death penalty is not provided for by the law of the requested Party … extradition may be refused unless the requesting Party gives such assurance as the requested Party considers sufficient that the death penalty will not be carried out.
Certainly, it is within our power to make that statement, and countries such as Austria assert that they will not extradite to countries where the death penalty is carried out, so there is no difficulty about that.
When extradition has been debated in Committee and in the other place, the issue that has constantly come up has been the problem of the United States of America. Justice in the United States is carried out by the state authorities, whereas decisions about extradition are made by sovereign bodies—the Government of the United Kingdom and the Federal Government of the United States. That is the difficulty about the arrangement. Those hon. Members who were on the Committee had hoped that by this stage the Minister would have tabled a Government amendment to confirm that those difficulties —if they are real difficulties—no longer exist.
I should like to quote the view on that issue of Professor Henkin of Columbia university in the city of New York. He makes it clear that there is no real problem. He states that article 4 of the extradition treaty of 1972 between the United States and the United Kingdom provides:
If the offence for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the relevant law of the requesting Party, but the relevant law of the requested Party does not provide for the death penalty in a similar case, extradition may be refused unless the requesting Party gives assurances satisfactory to the requested Party that the death penalty will not be carried out.
Professor Henkin believes that a treaty of the United States is the supreme law of the land and is binding on the states. If a death penalty were imposed on the extradited

person by a state court and not commuted by the governor of the state, the execution would be enjoined by the Federal Government on the ground that the execution would violate a treaty of the United States, which is the supreme law of the land. That is the view of Professor Henkin. It seems that the problems concerning the federal nature of the United States could be overcome. I hope that the Minister will indicate that he will accept our amendment in view of the problems which have been raised at various stages.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, although I do not share his view on capital punishment.
Will he explain the dilemma that might occur if the amendment were passed? It could result in fugitives from justice from other states—who had committed a murder, for example—going scot-free in this country if they were not sent back to the country that had jurisdiction for them.

Mr. Worthington: I am sure that a form of words could be arrived at, such as an undertaking by that state that the death penalty would not be carried out on that citizen. We are not making it a condition that all countries should adapt their law so that it is identical to ours. We are saying simply that no citizen should be extradited to a country where he is in danger of losing his life through judicial execution. Until now, the Government have not been willing to accept that condition, although they have much sympathy for our position. It is beyond our comprehension why the Government cannot come forward and state that the gist of what we are saying can be dealt with either through the European convention on extradition or by arriving at suitable treaty arrangements with particular states. We do not think that it is a difficult issue and we hope that the Government will confirm how easy it is.

Mr. John Patten: There is an awkwardness to the issue because of the federal nature of the United States. I have listened carefully to the views of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). I was also interested to learn of the views of Professor Henkin from Columbia university in New York, in his legal opinion, which I have not seen before.
In the United States murder is a state offence, not a federal offence, and is punishable in some states by death, but not in other states. That is the dilemma with different punishments in different states. The United States has a federal system and there can be collisions between the federal Government and state Governments. It has been possible for the United States to undertake that if a fugitive should be convicted representations will be made in the name of the United Kingdom, to the judge at the time of sentencing, that it is the wish of the United Kingdom that the death penalty should not be imposed or carried out.
I must tell the House that in all cases under our existing treaty with the United States, when people have been accused of an offence that attracts the death penalty and have been extradited to the United States, the wishes of the United Kingdom have been respected. There have been four occasions when that procedure has been followed.

Mr. Peter Archer: I apologise for the fact that I was not here when my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) moved the amendment.
What is the problem about a federation? A federal Government and a state Government are perfectly capable of speaking to each other. There is no difficulty about a state Government authorising a federal Government to give an undertaking.

Mr. Patten: I shall come to that point. I am extremely glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is here. We have missed him thus far.
The present practice has always had the desired outcome, and we welcome that. However, I understand the views and concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. We have discussed with the United States Government—the discussions have been going on until recently—what more could be done on a bilateral basis within the framework of the existing treaties.
The United States Government have confirmed that when extradition is sought for a capital offence against the laws of one state, only the state authority can decide whether assurances about the death penalty can be given. I hope that that answers the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer).
I cannot debate that point because I am not learned in the laws of the United States, but that is what we are informed. I know that it runs counter to the opinion of Professor Henkin of Columbia university, to whom the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie referred. Through the usual channels, I am advised by the Justice Department that, under United States federal law, the federal Government have no power to require any state to give an assurance or itself to give a binding assurance on behalf of the state without that state's consent. That answers the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question.

Mr. Archer: At the risk of being tiresome, that is the very point that I was making. It is in no way counter to what Professor Henkin said. It is exactly what he said. That being so, what is the problem? If a state can give authority to the federal Government to give such an undertaking, what is the difficulty?

Mr. Patten: An individual governor of an individual state, for reasons of the independence of that state, sitting in the governor's mansion, whatever state it is, may choose to say, "No. We reserve unto ourselves this state power that it is in our hands—within our state Government's competence—to preserve." That is the reality of the situation. It may not look logical from this side of the Atlantic, but that is the nature of the federal relationship in the United States.
I should like the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to consider the fact that the United States Government have assured us that if a state gives an assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or carried out, the federal Government can and will give the United Kingdom a formal and binding undertaking to that effect. This is the first time that we have had such an undertaking from the United States Government. It is an advance. That does not cover all the points raised by the hon. Member for

Clydebank and Milngavie, but, if such assurances are not given, we could not say that extradition could never be justified in such circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) put his finger on the point when he intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. He said that, in certain circumstances—they would be rare; probably as rare as the number of extraditions that we have thus far had to the United States—an otherwise convicted criminal could go free in this country. I do not believe that the people of the United Kingdom would wish that to be the case. The public would find it difficult to understand if a dangerous offender were given refuge here.
I hope that, with the Bill, we are putting in place legislation that will survive the test of time. I hope also that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and the hon. Members for Clydebank and Milngavie and For Dewsbury will accept that, throughout, we have used our best endeavours with the United States Government to reach a satisfactory accommodation. We have produced one step forward. I am not attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie—I would not dare to try to do such a thing. It does not cover all his points, but we have made a substantial advance. Thus far, the treaty has worked extremely well. I cannot commend amendment No. 203 to my hon. Friends.

Mr. Archer: I shall have one more go at the Minister on this matter—not in respect of his merits, but of his logic. All through the debates here and in another place it has been suggested that the problem lies in the federal nature of the United States constitution. It does no such thing. It is true that individual states must decide whether they have the death penalty and whether they can give an undertaking, but that has nothing to do with the federal nature of the United States constitution. As the Minister properly said, the federal Government can give any undertaking that lies within the power of a state Government, if that state Government authorises them to give that undertaking. If the state Government do not wish to authorise it, that is a different matter. That is precisely the same as if we were dealing with—[Interruption]. Perhaps the Minister could be allowed to concentrate. I know that he is trying to concentrate on the debate.
It is exactly the same as if we were dealing with any other Government, federal or otherwise. If the French Government, the West German Government, or any other Government hon. Members care to name decide to execute some people for whom extradition were requested and they would not give an undertaking not do so so, we would be in exactly the same position. If we were to make an exception for the United States, that exception could not be based on the federal nature of the United States constitution.
Surely, we either have a general rule that we do not extradite to any state where someone is liable to the death penalty, or we extradite to any state. To argue that, somehow or other, the federal constitution of the United States has something to do with it is simply to cast a smokescreen. If we were dealing with a state of the American union that was not prepared to give that undertaking, I should wish to deal with the matter as if we were dealing with any country that was not prepared to give such an undertaking. That is the way in which we have


traditionally dealt with the matter, and it is the way in which this country has earned its reputation as a haven for people who are in danger of suffering the death penalty. We simply say, "If we do not get the undertaking, we do not carry out the extradition."

Mr. Worthington: Opposition Members are not happy about the matter. We are still puzzled about why the Government cannot go the extra yard. We are simply asking for the Bill to be changed from "may" to "shall not". We do not see a problem about people going free. I am certain that if there is no problem about extradition in such cases——

Mr. Patten: There has not been a problem.

Mr. Worthington: The Minister says, "There has not been a problem." Then the receiving state—the country that wants to deal with an alleged offender—will soon give the undertaking that we seek.
Professor Henkin's view, which was not lightly given to Amnesty International, was that of an authority on United States constitutional law. He seems to be quite clearly of the view that there is no problem. According to our present treaty with the United States, extradition may be refused unless the requesting party gives satisfactory assurances to the requested party that the death penalty will not be carried out. That is a safeguard. Again, according to Professor Henkin, a treaty between this country and the United States is the supreme law, and a state cannot go against that law, or the federal agency would have to take account of it.
With considerable regret, and because we want to make progress on the Bill, but regard it as an important statement of this country's stance on execution policy, Opposition Members must divide the House. We regret that the Government did not deal with the matter more satisfactorily.

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 256.

Division No. 387]
[8.28 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Allen, Graham
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Corbett, Robin


Armstrong, Hilary
Cryer, Bob


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ashton, Joe
Dalyell, Tam


Beckett, Margaret
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bell, Stuart
Dixon, Don


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Doran, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Douglas, Dick


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Blunkett, David
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Boateng, Paul
Eastham, Ken


Boyes, Roland
Fatchett, Derek


Bradley, Keith
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Foster, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foulkes, George


Buchan, Norman
Fyfe, Maria


Caborn, Richard
Galloway, George


Callaghan, Jim
George, Bruce


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Gordon, Mildred


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Graham, Thomas


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)





Grocott, Bruce
Nellist, Dave


Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Henderson, Doug
O'Neill, Martin


Hinchliffe, David
Patchett, Terry


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Pike, Peter L.


Hood, Jimmy
Primarolo, Dawn


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Randall, Stuart


Howells, Geraint
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rogers, Allan


John, Brynmor
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Clare


Leighton, Ron
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McAllion, John
Spearing, Nigel


McAvoy, Thomas
Steinberg, Gerry


Macdonald, Calum A.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McFall, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McKelvey, William
Turner, Dennis


McLeish, Henry
Vaz, Keith


McTaggart, Bob
Wall, Pat


McWilliam, John
Wallace, James


Madden, Max
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wigley, Dafydd


Meale, Alan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Michael, Alun
Wilson, Brian


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Winnick, David


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Worthington, Tony


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wray, Jimmy


Morgan, Rhodri



Morley, Elliott
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mullin, Chris
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Murphy, Paul
Mr. Frank Cook.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Allason, Rupert
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Amess, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arbuthnot, James
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Conway, Derek


Ashby, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Aspinwall, Jack
Cope, Rt Hon John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Couchman, James


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Batiste, Spencer
Critchley, Julian


Beggs, Roy
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bendall, Vivian
Curry, David


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Day, Stephen


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Devlin, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dover, Den


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dunn, Bob


Bowis, John
Durant, Tony


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dykes, Hugh


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Emery, Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Evennett, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fallon, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Favell, Tony


Browne, John (Winchester)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Buck, Sir Antony
Forth, Eric


Budgen, Nicholas
Franks, Cecil


Burns, Simon
Freeman, Roger


Burt, Alistair
French, Douglas


Butcher, John
Gardiner, George


Butler, Chris
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butterfill, John
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian






Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gow, Ian
Miller, Sir Hal


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Miscampbell, Norman


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moate, Roger


Grist, Ian
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Ground, Patrick
Monro, Sir Hector


Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moss, Malcolm


Hanley, Jeremy
Neale, Gerrard


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Neubert, Michael


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Harris, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawkins, Christopher
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayes, Jerry
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hayward, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Heddle, John
Paice, James


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hind, Kenneth
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pawsey, James


Holt, Richard
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Portillo, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Price, Sir David


Irvine, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Irving, Charles
Redwood, John


Jack, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Janman, Tim
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rowe, Andrew


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Kilfedder, James
Ryder, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knapman, Roger
Scott, Nicholas


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knox, David
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Colin (Heretord)


Lang, Ian
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley. Peter
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Squire, Robin


McCrindle, Robert
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David
Stevens, Lewis


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stokes, Sir John


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Madel, David
Sumberg, David


Major, Rt Hon John
Summerson, Hugo


Malins, Humfrey
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maples, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thorne, Neil


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Maude, Hon Francis
Thurnham, Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Townend, John (Bridlington)





Tracey, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Walden, George
Wilkinson, John


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Wilshire, David


Waller, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Walters, Sir Dennis
Wood, Timothy


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Woodcock, Mike


Warren, Kenneth
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Watts, John



Wheeler, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitney, Ray
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. Alan Howarth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 18

PERSONS SERVING SENTENCES OUTSIDE COUNTRY OF CONVICTION

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 14, line 23, after 'State' insert
'in the case of which the Extradition Act 1870 applies or as between which and the United Kingdom extradition procedures under this Part of this Act are available'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 37 to 39.

Mr. Patten: These drafting amendments are designed to ensure that repatriation cases are dealt with on the basis of the relevant treaty with the requesting state. The Bill failed to make that clear, but the amendments put it right and I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 37, in page 15, line 21, at end insert
'as they apply in the case of that state'.

No. 38, in page 15, line 21, at end insert—
'(aa) if it is made by some person recognised as a diplomatic representative of a foreign state as between whom and the United Kingdom extradition procedures under this Part of this Act are available, the following provisions of this Act, as they apply in the case of that state—

(i) section 1(1) to (8); and
(ii) sections 2 to 17; and'.

No. 39, in page 15, line 24, leave out from '1967' to end of line 25 and insert
`as it applies in the case of that country or dependency'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 20

APPLICATION TO COLONIES AND OTHER DEPENDENCIES

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 15, line 34, leave out clause 20.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 21

SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 16, line 6, at end insert—
`(2A) The following shall be inserted after paragraph 9—
9A. The offence of torture under section [Torture] of the Criminal Justice Act 1988."'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 22

FIRST-HAND HEARSAY

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 246, in page 16, line 38, leave out from beginning to 'or' in line 41.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 247.

Mr. Hogg: The amendments are our response to the point made in Committee by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). He said—we agree—that lack of recollection is not a good ground for admitting evidence in historic documents of a private kind, but it is a good ground for admitting in evidence historic documents of a business kind. The amendments will achieve that aim.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23

BUSINESS ETC. DOCUMENTS

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page 17, line 34, leave out 'under section 28' and insert—'in accordance with section 28 below or an order under paragraph 6 of Schedule 13 to this Act or under section'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 72.

Mr. Hogg: These are drafting and technical amendments consequential upon decisions made in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 247, in page 17, line 41, at end insert
`or
(iii) the person who made the statement cannot reasonably be expected (having regard to the time which has elapsed since he made the statement and to all the circumstances) to have any recollection of the matters dealt with in the statemene.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 25

STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS THAT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN PREPARED FOR PURPOSES OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OR INVESTIGATIONS

Amendment made: No. 72, in page 18, line 28, leave out
`under section 28' and insert
`in accordance with section 28 below or an order under paragraph 6 of Schedule 13 to this Act or under section'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 30

FORM OF EVIDENCE AND GLOSSARIES

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 248, in page 20, line 34, at end insert
`in any case where the court gives leave for, or requires, evidence or a glossary to be so furnished'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 251.

Mr. Hogg: The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that evidence can be admitted only with the leave of the judge. We believe that it is desirable that that provision should appear on the face of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31

EVIDENCE THROUGH CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION LINKS

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 249, in page 20, line 36, leave out 'closed circuit'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 281, in page 20, line 36, after 'indictment'. insert
',any proceedings in a magistrates' court'.
No. 213, in page 20, line 40, leave out '14' and insert `16'.
No. 280, in page 22, line 30, leave out '14' and insert `16'.
Government amendments Nos. 250 and 252.

Mr. Patten: Amendment No. 249 and the related amendments make small but important technical changes to the clause and the schedule permitting television links to be used in some proceedings in crown courts and service orders.
The Government amendments have been grouped with amendment No. 281, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and amendments Nos. 213 and 280, tabled by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon). Those amendments raise different aspects, and it may be convenient for me to comment upon them, with the leave of the House, at a later stage in the debate, after I have heard the arguments of those hon Members.
I wish to do an unusual thing and pay public tribute to a Whip, in this case the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). The hon Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) did the House a considerable service by helpfully pointing out in Committee that the phrase, "closed television link" may not be entirely suitable for the sort of equipment that the courts may wish to use in the circumstances.
Amendment No. 249 substitutes a simpler phrase, "live television link" and I believe that that conveys the right idea of a link between sound and moving pictures, which can be transmitted by cable or satellite from the next room or from overseas. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North and especially grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme for their contributions.
Amendments Nos. 250 and 252 also follow up a point that emerged in Committee—this time with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler). My hon. Friend pointed out that subsection (5), as drafted, appeared to undermine the purpose of the clause in that it allowed court rules to be drawn up enabling the child to see all the participants in the trial. That would, of course, include the defendant, and I do not believe that any of us in this House would want that. We want to put that right; therefore, amendment No. 250 deletes subsection (5), and amendment No. 252 does the same to the schedule providing for the link in service courts.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South for drawing this matter to our attention. I look forward to hearing the arguments of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar and my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst on the other amendments.

Ms. Gordon: Amendment No. 213 seeks to change from 14 to 16 the age under which a witness is permitted to give evidence through a television link. I do not wish to say much, because most of my remarks will be addressed to amendment No. 216, which comes later.
The age of 14 as the age when childhood is considered to have ended harks back to 50 years ago, when children left school at the age of 14 and began to undertake paid work—at least among the poorer classes—and they matured earlier. The school-leaving age is now 16, as is the age of consent. What is more important is that the years 14 to 16 years are years of puberty, when young people are especially sensitive. I believe that it is particularly important for children up to the age of 16 to have the same right as a younger child to give their evidence through a television link, instead of having to face their attacker in court.

Mr. Roger Sims: As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, clause 31 makes provision for a televison link to be used for witnesses under the age of 14 to enable them to give evidence in court. That is a most welcome provision, and I do not believe that I need elaborate the case for it.
The clause as presently drafted reads:
A person other than the accused may give evidence through a live closed circuit television link on a trial on indictment or an appeal to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal
It therefore follows that proceedings in magistrates courts are excluded from that provision. I accept that most of the cases of the types specified in the clause are dealt with at the Crown court, but there are three considerations that I wish to put to the House.
First, cases such as indecent assault can be tried by the magistrates court and a case of indecent exposure can only be tried at a magistrates court. In both instances, a child under the age of 14 may be involved, yet he or she would not have the advantage of the video link provided for in the clause.
Secondly, all committal proceedings take place in the magistrates court. That may well involve a child giving evidence, but the child will be unable to use a video link as the clause presently stands. The child may well have to attend the court, a procedure that the child is likely to find unnerving, indeed intimidating, especially if he or she must face the person accused of the offence against them. I accept that the child's evidence may be given by deposition in committal proceedings, but that only applies if the defence agrees. There are still some cases in which the child must appear to give evidence in committal proceedings.
The third argument in favour of extending the video-link provision to magistrates courts would be for its use in care proceedings. These must take place in magistrates courts, and in such cases a child may have to give evidence that may concern allegations against, for instance, the father. The difficulties that could be created by father and child appearing in the same court are

obvious. Again, the closed-circuit television would be invaluable, but its use would be precluded as the clause stands.
I accept that the number of cases under all three headings that I have given is relatively small. I accept, too, that my hon. Friend the Minister may argue that the cost of providing a video link would be disproportionate; but, if anything, that is perhaps an argument for providing a link for the exceptional cases.
My amendment is permissive. It does not state that all magistrates courts must be equipped with a video link. It would surely be sufficient for a few magistrates courts to be thus provided, so that appropriate cases could be transferred to the nearest magistrates court that had a closed-circuit television system. The inconvenience of travelling to such a court would be more than compensated for by the advantage of the link.
As the Bill stands, a television link can be used for any proceedings in a Crown court, but it can never be used in a magistrates court. I invite my hon. Friend to remove that anomaly by accepting my amendment.

Mr. John Patten: I shall deal first with the points raised by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon). Such relevant statutory precedents as there are tend to support 14 as the cut-off age in this context. The most important of those is the long-established dividing line which is well known to those involved in child care, and which is defined in the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 as being the line between a child and a young person. Most of us are conversant with the provisions of that Act, and I see no reason for the moment to move away from that definition. However, I understand that the hon. Lady is saving some of her arguments for a debate that may take place on amendment No. 216, so perhaps we can return to these issues later. I am not moved by the amendment.
I turn now to amendment No. 281, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who is an acknowledged expert in this subject. The amendment would permit the use of a live television link, in child abuse cases and in cases in which a witness was overseas, in any proceedings in magistrates courts. The Bill, as my hon. Friend pointed out, provides for these facilities to be available only in Crown court trials, and nowhere else. We made the proposal about the Crown courts—it has been widely welcomed on both sides of the House—because there was a recognised problem. A number of documented cases, many of them brought to the attention of Ministers and others much written about in the national press and shown on national television, showed that there was a problem in the Crown courts that had to be solved, so it was incumbent upon us all to find a way of doing that.
Is the problem really so great in magistrates courts? Does it exist at all? That is open to debate. The atmosphere, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chiselhurst will know all too well, is much less formal in a magistrates court than the rather frightening atmosphere of a Crown court—frightening not only for children but for adults. There are fewer people in the court, most of them wearing ordinary clothes. That is particularly true of the informal atmosphere of a juvenile court, in which magistrates who are specially selected and trained for work with juveniles are encouraged to hold criminal and care proceedings in as informal a way as possible. There is broad consent that that is the best way to proceed.
Secondly, the courtrooms are usually less daunting in appearance, although some magistrates courts can be rather awesome. I hold one of my regular advice centres in the back of Abingdon court house. That seems to induce a sense of awe in some of my constituents, which I find rather agreeable. I do not get it in other parts of my constituency.
As far as we in the Home Office are aware, there has been no suggestion thus far—with detailed examples of cases—that children are experiencing the same problems when giving evidence in magistrates courts as they have undoubtedly suffered in Crown court trials. It is very much to the credit of the magistrates that that is so. This is not a bad dictum for a Minister to have written on his wall: "No problem, therefore take no action." I try to cleave to that from time to time.
I know that the Magistrates Association is interested in the potential for using television links in magistrates courts. We have corresponded with the association. Its chairman, John Hosking, and others have taken a considerable interest in the subject. I have reflected carefully on the matter because of that interest and I have thought particularly about the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Chiselhurst. I am conscious that this is the second time on Report when it looks as though I shall have to disoblige my hon. Friend when he is concerned only with an enabling power. I am very sorry that that is so. I know that this will be a disappointment to him, but I hope that, on the basis of what I have said and of the fact that there have been no well documented examples of children suffering difficulties, he will be inclined not to press his amendment. We shall continue to monitor the position carefully in the Home Office.

Mr. Sims: May I have my hon. Friend's assurance that, if experience in the Crown courts with the use of the link, and in the magistrates courts without it, suggests over a period of years that there would be an advantage in extending the provision to magistrates courts, the Home Office will be prepared to consider such an extension?

Mr. John Patten: Yes, I must give that undertaking to my hon. Friend and to all Opposition Members who take an interest in these matters. Obviously, it would be of grave concern to the Home Office if things appeared to have been exacerbated by practice in the Crown courts and that there had been some effect on the magistrates courts. I am happy to give my hon. Friend the undertaking he seeks.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 250, in page 21, line 19, leave out subsection (5).— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 32

EVIDENCE OF PERSONS UNDER I4 IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS

Ms. Gordon: I beg to move amendment No. 216, in page 22, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (a).
Clause 32 deals with assaults, sexual offences and offences against children. It relates to proceedings in the magistrates courts and the evidence of children in committal proceedings. It provides that any statement made by or taken from a child should be admissible in

testimony of any matter on which the child's oral evidence would be admissible. However, subsection (3)(a), which my amendment seeks to delete, would allow the defence to object to such an admission, in which case the child would have to come to court.
Last week, the Home Secretary said that he would set up a committee to consider using video links to give evidence. That is to be welcomed, and I hope that the remit of the committee will be extended to look into other forms of giving evidence. We all want to make it easier for children who have been attacked to come forward and give evidence against their attackers. The scope of the problem is only beginning to be realised. The first reactions of horror, followed in many cases by denial and by a feeling of impotence—not knowing how to deal with the problem on such a massive scale—is fairly new and something with which we must come to terms.
We all want to stop adults who repeatedly attack one child or many children but who are free to continue because no child can be found who could face a court appearance. Equally, we want a fair trial for defendants. But that does not mean that children and young people should be put through the trauma of facing their attackers. To a person who has never been in one, any court can be intimidating. That is even more true in the case of children.
9 pm
A child has no status in society. A child's word is often given far less weight than the word of the defendant, who may be a man of substance. The child or young person knows that and feels that he or she will not be believed —for very good reason. A defence lawyer who is doing his job on behalf of his client must try to discredit the child if that child is in court. Those are all good reasons why we should not allow the defence to force a child to come to court. Often when children come into court they whisper and cannot get the words out. For every child who whispers in a court there are dozens who never come forward. We must try to make it easier for children and young people under the age of 16 to come forward.
In the north of England there is an organisation called Childwatch run by a woman who was herself assaulted as a child. She receives about 500 calls a week, and she says that she knows rapists who have attacked child after child. The police often know the identity of a man who has made repeated attacks, but because they cannot find a child who will stand up in court, or whose parents will allow their child to come to court, the police are powerless.
Even when cases come to court, all is not plain sailing. Magistrates have been known to let out on bail rapists who have repeated their attacks. Judges have been known to talk of children's naughty habits. In 1982, a 17-year-old hitch-hiker—a very tender age, even if it is above the age of childhood—was told by a judge that she was guilty of contributory negligence, and the rapist, who was a business man, was not gaoled but fined £2,000.
In my local paper this week there is a report of a girl aged eight who was terrorised into silence by a child molester who threatened to kill her mother and sister. But after months of being subjected to sex attacks, the youngster plucked up the courage to tell. If children know that they will not have to face their attacker across a court room, more will have the courage to come forward and abuse will be prevented.
Mothers often face a dilemma. Their natural feeling is that their child's well-being comes first and that the child


has been through enough already, but that leads to offenders remaining on the loose and repeat offences are high. Only a tiny percentage of offenders are apprehended, let alone brought to court.
An independent survey was carried out by Women Against Rape in 1985, to which 1,236 women responded, with 62 per cent. of 2,000 questionnaires being returned. The women were asked about their childhood. One in five had been raped or had suffered some sexual assault as a child or teenager. Some had told an adult, only to be told that they were imagining things or that they should not talk dirty. Less than one third of those who had been raped or sexually assaulted before they had reached the age of 11 had told anybody about it at the time of the attack. Some had never told anybody before replying to the survey.
To appreciate the difficulties that children face when going to court, we must consider who the defendants are likely to be. Many people assume that the defendant will be a stranger, but three quarters of rapists are known to their victims.
The Women Against Rape survey showed that one in five of all children or teenagers had been raped or sexually assaulted, and that one out of five of them—one in 25 of all children—had been assaulted by a member of their own family. To make the position more graphic, we should think of a typical classroom in which six of the children have been or soon will be assaulted and, in some cases, have been repeatedly assaulted over a period of years. This often happens as a result of the abuse of power by an adult who has control over a child or young person.

Mr. John Patten: The hon. Lady's speech is extremely interesting, but I am finding it hard to relate her remarks to committal proceedings, with which amendment No. 216 is concerned.

Ms. Gordon: I am speaking about a child having to go to court. During the committal proceedings the defence can demand that a child comes into court. The purpose of my argument, which I thought was clear, was to show that if a child knows that he will have to go to court he will be afraid to speak up, or the parent will not allow the child to go to court. Thus, attackers go unpunished and are free to continue attacks. That is the purpose of my argument, and I should like to continue it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am bound to say that I share the Minister's confusion. Perhaps the hon. Lady has misdirected her amendment or perhaps she does not appreciate that the argument that she is addressing does not clearly relate to the matter before the House.

Ms. Gordon: I thought that it did. I did not think that it was out of order to argue against children having to go to court but in favour of them being able to give evidence in other ways. I am seeking to delete a provision that says that the defence can demand that a child comes to court, which would lead to the child being face to face with the defendant.
The defendant is often a person who is known to or has control over the child, such as the head of a children's home or a stepfather. We should imagine the fear of a 15-year-old facing a stepfather in court, who is often aware that the family is financially dependent on him or is afraid of him.
In other European countries evidence can be taken without a child coming into court. In some states in the

United States video recordings are used, as has been suggested here. In West Germany, judges usually question children alone in a private room. In Belgium, the judge questions children with two lawyers present, one for the prosecution and one for the defence. In Holland, children are questioned by a woman police officer on a written statement to the judge.
I hope that the committee that is to be set up will consider all those examples for magistrates and Crown courts here, and that the statements of several children can be taken together where the written evidence of one child is not enough to commit a defendant for trial if he has attacked several children. I hope that evidence can be taken in that way.
The state has an absolute responsibility to make it possible for children to speak out at all stages of proceedings but without wrongfully convicting anybody. The younger the child, the harder it is to say anything. The only way that we can reduce the terrible suffering of children who have to withstand sexual assaults is by investigating and introducing ways of making it possible for them to speak out without having to face their attackers.

Mr. John Patten: I have listened with care to the points made by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon)—both her general points, which, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not address, and the specific point about committal. Removing the right of the defence to object to the use of an earlier statement would, as a matter of principle, be a major step.
I can appreciate the hon. Lady's concern. The future of committal proceedings, including the place of oral evidence at the committal stage, is in the melting pot. The Home Office hopes shortly to publish a consultation document inviting public and professional comments on the possible shape of reform for committal proceedings overall.
I do not find the argument of principle overwhelming, but it would be a mistake to make a significant procedural change affecting committal proceedings, which is what the hon. Lady is suggesting in amendment No. 216, with all the implications for the defence, before we are clear about the future of committal proceedings.
I hope that the hon. Lady will take some encouragement from what I have said tonight. We shall not lose sight of the clear points that she has made about committal. I am grateful to her for raising them in the spirit in which she has, but I cannot advise the House to accept amendment No. 216 in advance of the much wider review of committal proceedings which many recognise is much needed.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 34

SCOPE OF PART IV

Amendments made: No. 73, in page 22, line 47, leave out 'section' and insert 'Part of this Act'.

No. 76, in page 22, line 48, at end insert—
'(1A) Subject to Rules of Court, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under section 35 below shall be exercised by the criminal division of the Court, and references to the Court of Appeal in this part of this Act shall be construed as references to that division.'

No. 74, in page 23, line 1, leave out 'section' and insert 'part of this Act'.

No. 75, in page 23, line 7, leave out 'section' and insert 'Part of this Act'.

No. 77, in page 23, line 18, leave out '(7)' and insert '(6A)'.

No. 78, in page 23, line 18, at end insert—
'(6A) Subsection (1A) shall be omitted.'— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 40

POWER OF CROWN COURT TO DEAL WITH SUMMARY OFFENCE WHERE PERSON COMMITTED FOR EITHER WAY OFFENCE

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 27, line 15, at end insert
'except as provided by subsection (8A) below.
(8A) If the prosecution inform the court that they would not desire to submit evidence on the charge relating to the summary offence, the Court shall dimiss it.'.
This is a technical amendment. Clause 48(8) provides that where a person committed to the Crown court under the new procedure pleads not guilty to the summary offence, the powers of the Crown court shall cease in respect of that offence. On reflection, I think that the words go further than we intended in one respect in that they appear to preclude the Crown court from hearing a prosecution submission of no evidence on the summary offence. If the prosecution does not wish to offer evidence, it is clearly desirable that the matter should be disposed of there and then. Amendment No. 86 ensures that the Crown court can do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43

FIREARMS OFFENCES

Amendment made: No. 87, in page 28, line 32, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
'(2) For the third and fourth columns of the entries relating to an offence under section 2(1) (possessing, etc. shotgun without shotgun certificate) there shall be substituted—


"(a) Summary
6 months or the statutory maximum or both.


(b) On indictment
3 years or a fine; or both.".'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 50

STATUTORY MAXIMUM AS PENALTY ON SUMMARY CONVICTION FOR OFFENCES TRIABLE EITHER WAY UNDER SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION

Amendment made: No. 88, in page 31, line 39, leave out 'Part of this Act' and insert
'section and sections 51, 52, 54, 56 and 58 below'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 55

FINES UNDER SECONDARY SUBORDINATE INSTRUMENTS: SCOTLAND

Amendment made: No. 56, in page 34, line 30, after '1', insert 'on the standard scale'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 68

FORFEITURE-GENERAL

Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 42, line 40, at end insert
'and without regard to any restrictions of forfeiture in an enactment contained in an Act passed before the Criminal Justice Act 1988'.
I apologise for the fact that I shall be moving this amendment at not very considerable length. I thank the Minister of State and his advisers for considerable assistance in dealing with this amendment, not least in drafting it.
Clause 68 expands the forfeiture powers of the court. There are other statutory powers of forfeiture, some of which contain restrictions. It would be illogical if clause 68, which is intended to bring forfeiture powers up to date, were fettered by such restrictions. It is on those grounds that I move the amendment.

Mr. John Patten: The hon. and learned Gentleman's logic is overwhelming. Any opposition I might have had is totally crushed, and the Government accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made:No. 242, in page 42, line 46, at end insert—
'(2) At the end of section 12(4) of that Act (which authorises a court, on making a probation order in respect of an offender or discharging an offender, absolutely or conditionally, to order him to pay costs or compensation) there shall be added the words "or to make an order under section 43 below".'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 74

APPLICATION OF PROCEDURE FOR ENFORCING FINES

Amendment made: No. 90, in page 49. line 3, leave out from 'imprisonment' to 'which' in line 4 and insert
'or detention in a young offender institution'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 75

CASES IN WHICH RESTRAINT ORDERS AND CHARGING ORDERS MAY BE MADE

Amendment made: No. 92, in page 49, line 40, after 'that', insert
'there are reasonable grounds for thinking that'— [Mr. John Pattern.]

Clause 76

RESTRAINT ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 93, in page 50, line 21, at end insert—
'(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, a restraint order may make such provision as the court thinks fit for living expenses and legal expenses.'

Clause 88

COMPENSATION

Amendments made: No. 94, in page 61, line 40, leave out from beginning to 'or' in line 41.

No. 95, in page 61, line 43, at end insert 'or convictions concerned'.

No. 96, in page 61, line 46, at end insert
'if, having regard to all the circumstances, it considers it appropriate to make such an order'.

No. 97, in page 62, line 6, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 7.

No. 98, in page 62, line 8, leave out 'substantial'.

No. 99, in page 62, line 10, at end insert—
'(2A) The Court shall not order compensation to be paid in any case where it appears to the Court that the proceedings would have been instituted or continued even if the serious default had not occurred.'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 94

ENFORCEMENT OF OTHER EXTERNAL ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 100, in page 66, line 4, leave out 'and which are retained there shall nevertheless' and insert 'shall'.

No. 101. in page 66, line 19, at end insert—
'(3A) The power to make an Order in Council under this section includes power to modify this Part of this Act in such a way as to confer power on a person to exercise a discretion.'. — [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 96

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION SUBJECT TO CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTION UPON DISCLOSURE.

Amendment made: No. 239, in page 67, line 4, at end insert—
'(2) In subsection (1) above "constable" includes a police officer engaged on central service (as defined in section 43(5) of the Police Act 1964).'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 98

POWER TO INSPECT LAND REGISTER, ETC

Amendment made: No. 102, in page 68, line 48, at end insert—
'(7) This section shall cease to have effect on the day appointed under section 3(2) of the Land Registration Act 1988 for the coming into force of that Act.'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 107

CRIMINAL INJURIES

Amendments made: No. 107, in page 75, line 3, leave out
'in Scotland, the offence of'

No. 108, in page 75, line 14, leave out
'in Scotland, the offence of'

No. 109, in page 75, line 15, leave out
'or false imprisonment or, in Scotland, abduction' and insert—
'(ja) false imprisonment;
(jb) abduction;'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 108

QUALIFYING INJURIES

Amendment made: No. 110, in page 75, line 36, after 'the', insert
law of England and Wales or'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 109

AWARDS OF COMPENSATION

Amendments made: No. 111, in page 77, line 13, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—

'(1A) The heads of compensation are those specified in subsections (1B) to (1E) below.
(1B) An award may be made under subsection (1)(a) above—
(a) for the injury; and
(b) for any loss of or damage to property of the claimant which occurred in the course of his sustaining the injury,
but compensation shall only he payable under paragraph (b) above if he relied on the property as a physical aid and for damage only if the damage impaired the utility of the property as a physical aid and shall only be for the cost of replacing it with other property of equal utility as a physical aid or carrying our repairs to restore its utility as a physical aid.
(1C) If a person dies as a result of a qualifying injury—
(a) an award of compensation for funeral expenses may be made to any person other than a public authority but shall not exceed a reasonable amount;
(b) where a claim falls to be determined in accordance with the rules of the law of England and Wales, an award of compensation for bereavement may he made to any person falling within section 1A(2) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976;
(c) where a claim falls to be determined in accordance with the rules of the law of Scotland, an award of compensation for loss of society may be made to any person who is a member of the deceased's immediate family within the meaning of section 10(2) of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976; and
(d) an award may be made to a dependant of the deceased (whether or not an award is made to him or to any other person under paragraph (a), (b) or (c) above) in respect of any loss of support suffered by the dependant.
(1D) Subject to subsection (1G) below, if a person who has sustained a qualifying injury dies otherwise than as a result of it, the Board may award compensation to a dependant of his in respect of any loss which he has suffered by reason—
(a) of any reduction in earnings (not being prospective earnings) by the deceased; and
(b) of any expenses and liabilities incurred by the deceased as a result of the injury.
(1E) If—
(a) a woman is awarded compensation for rape; and
(b) she has given birth to a child conceived as a result of the rape; and
(c) at the time of the award she intends to keep the child,
the Board shall award her the additional statutory sum in respect of each child so conceived that she then intends to keep.
(1F) The Board may make an interim award, but without prejudice to their powers on a final determination.
(1G) If a person who has sustained a qualifying injury dies otherwise than as a result of it, the Board may not award compensation to a dependant of his if before he died he became entitled, otherwise than on an interim award, to a payment of compensation in respect of it.
(1H) If—
(a) a deceased person was entitled to payment of conpensation for an injury; and
(b) a claim for compensation for the same injury is made by one of his dependants,
any compensation awarded to the dependant shall be reduced by the amount of the compensation to payment of which the deceased was entitled; and proportionate reductions shall be made on awards to two or more dependants.'.

No. 112, in page 77, line 38 leave out from 'Act' to end of line 42 and insert—
'"the additional statutory sum" means £5,000 or such other sum as may for the time being be specified by virtue of an order under subsection (8) below; and
dependant"—
(a) where the appropriate law for the determination of a claim is the law of England and Wales, has the same meaning as in the Fatal Accidents Act 1976; and


(b) where it is the law of Scotland, means a relative within the meaning of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976.
(8) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute a different sum for the sum specified in subsection (7) above.
(9) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (8) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 110

POWERS TO WITHHOLD AND REDUCE COMPENSATION

Amendments made: No. 113, in page 77, line 47 leave out 'his' and insert 'the'
No. 114, in page 78, line 5, leave out 'his' and insert 'the'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Mr. Worthington: I beg to move amendment No. 208, in page 78, line 14, leave out—
'(1) Criminal convictions or unlawful conduct of the claimant'.
After that performance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether it is in order to suggest that we should lie down in a darkened room to recover.
The Bill proposes that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board may, if it thinks fit, refuse an award or award less than it would otherwise have awarded, either because of the criminal convictions of, or unlawful conduct by, the claimant, or because of conduct on his part that is connected with the injury. We do not have any quarrel with the part dealing with conduct of the claimant that led to the injury—clearly one should not benefit from the consequences of illegal actions—but we have considerable reservations about the fact that an award may be reduced or not made at all if the person making the claim has criminal convictions or, even worse, in that strange phrase, has been involved "at any time" in unspecified, unlimited unlawful conduct.
If the proposal becomes law it will mean that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board must take note of such conduct and that that must be brought to the board's attention by those servicing it. That is almost saying, "Look, when you make an award, you should take into account the behaviour of this person." I find that objectionable. Criminal injuries are events on their own. The proposal has elements of the 19th century poor law, with its definitions of the deserving poor and the undeserving poor.
In our view, there should be a sense of equality before the law. I know that we are not dealing with a court, but if one has suffered because of the criminal actions of another person or persons, that fact should be considered on its own. We should certainly not have the notion that a board, which is not a court of law, and which, in a sense, operates informally—I am not quarrelling with that in general terms—and from which there is no right of appeal at the moment, should, in closed session, be able to take into account and make judgments about a person's behaviour.
It is always difficult to imagine how a board might react to, or judge, a particular situation. Let us consider prostitution as an example. If someone has been convicted of soliciting for prostitution, I would be unhappy if, although that person might have been injured by the criminal acts of others, that person's previous behaviour were taken into account because that would be a blanket

power and a vague rule. That fact should be taken into account in the Government's proposals for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. That proposal seems unnecessary, because it does have a validity of its own.
I should like to give in evidence the fact that the Scottish Association of Victims' Support Schemes has recently appointed a working party to look into the issue. Its work has been funded by the social work services group, which is a section of the Scottish Office. Therefore, it is a body of considerable standing and has representatives from the sheriffs' and procurator fiscals' departments. It has legal representatives and representatives from citizens advice bureaux, social work departments and the police. They are looking at the whole question of compensation for victims of crime in a Scottish context. The inquiry is not just about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, because there is also the issue of the compensation that might be awarded by a court. I do not quote from the publication produced by that body because throughout its extensive inquiries the point that I am raising was not raised by anybody in that forum. I repeat that it is a body with some official standing, looking at the way in which compensation is dealt with in a Scottish context.
As far as I am aware, no one thought to raise as a valid issue whether to take into account the claimant's previous criminal convictions or, even worse, the unlawful conduct of the person who had suffered when deciding whether compensation should be paid in a particular case. If someone has suffered, that should be considered on its own account as a separate issue. A measure of moral worthiness should not be brought into the matter because of previous acts that might have been committed recently or a long time ago.
We hope that the Government will accept this minor amendment to delete the requirement of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to take into account previous convictions or unlawful conduct, because it simply does not seem fair.

Mr. John Patten: There is quite a gap between the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and me on this issue. Amendment No. 208 would remove the board's discretion to take account of an applicant's criminal history or previous unlawful behaviour. That would be a significant departure from the terms of the present extra-statutory scheme that we are now putting into statutory form with the passage of the Bill through the House and the other place. For many years, that has allowed the board to reduce or withhold compensation from someone with a recent criminal history. Amendments to the earlier Bill, which fell at the election, amended the board's discretion by removing references to character and way of life, which are part of the present scheme. That, of course, is maintained in the Bill.
However, I do not believe that it would be right to further limit the board's discretion, so that it cannot take account of past criminal activities, for the following reasons. First, we should remember that the board disburses large amounts of taxpayers' money. Secondly, I do not believe that our constituents would take it kindly if we paid compensation from public funds to, for example, an habitually violent gang leader who is attacked by someone who had been injured by his gang or attacked by


a member of a rival gang. To use the terms of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, that example has a validity of its own for maintaining the scheme.
The board takes seriously the responsibility of using its discretion to reduce or withhold awards only when there is justification. The grounds upon which it exercises its discretion are clearly set out in its statement issued to all applicants and to the advisers of all applicants. To my mind, the existing wording of the measure provides the board with a valuable safeguard against having to compensate those applicants whose record renders them, in the board's view, simply undeserving of full compensation from public funds. That is a valuable safeguard, and we should retain it.

Mr. Archer: I shall surprise the Minister by agreeing with him. I cannot wholly agree with my hon. Friends and support the amendment in its present form. The Minister is correct to say that the board should have the right to take into account such matters as previous convictions and unlawful conduct, but perhaps he can understand the anxieties expressed by Opposition Members.
The Bill states that the board may take into account any previous convictions or unlawful conduct, whether or not connected with the incident or injuries, whether or not in any way contributing to the injury, or even if it takes place after the injury has been sustained. I am sure that that cannot be what the Government intend to happen and, as the Minister will understand, that is not what happens at present.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does my right hon. and learned Friend consider that subsection (2)(b), which talks of
conduct on his part connected with the injury",
might be sufficient to cover those circumstances in which a person's conduct has led him to be involved in the gangland situation described by the Minister? Surely paragraph (a) is far too wide and does not go to the relevance of the claim whereas paragraph (b), which is acceptable to us all, provides that any conduct on the part of the person connected with the injury should rule that person out for an award or lead to a lesser award. Does not that cover all the circumstances that might be relevant?

Mr. Archer: As always, I find my hon. Friend's logic compelling. I would have been happy with only paragraph (b). but I have an uneasy feeling that, if paragraph (a) were deleted—as the Minister has said, it is part of the non-statutory scheme—that might give rise to misunderstandings.
I would have hoped to produce a halfway house. I do not know whether it is too late in the progress of the Bill to do that procedurally. I am sure that such a move would not defeat us. After all, the Bill will have to return to another place. Perhaps "relevant and lawful conduct" and "relevant previous convictions" would make us all happy.
The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has a great deal of force. We do not wish to distinguish between the good guys and dolls and the bad guys and dolls, the deserving and the undeserving. We want to distinguish between conduct that has contributed to the injury and conduct that has not.

Mr. Worthington: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for his

valuable contribution. I hope that the Minister will take some note of it. The Minister's defence of the clause was particularly unconvincing when he came heavily to depend on precedent. It is not relevant or useful to say that, because a provision has been in previous legislation, it should continue to appear in future legislation, unless the Minister is prepared to refer to the work of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and to say that the provision has proved to be necessary or useful. To say that it has been in legislation and that it must stay in it is a denial of the Minister's previous academic background of high distinction. In that respect, his reply was disappointing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West dealt extremely well with the Minister's example, which turned on subsection (2)(b), which refers to
conduct on his part connected with the injury.
The Minister placed before us the outlandish example of a gangland leader applying to the board for compensation. Surely that would be swept up by the clause. It is an endearing thought that the modern equivalent of one of the K ray twins should approach the board. A Minister who is on the ropes always goes for the worst case possible.
We did not have in mind that which the Minister put before the House. We were thinking of much humbler figures who at some stage in their past were involved in unlawful conduct. I note that the Minister did not pick that up. I am not clear what "unlawful conduct" would be picked up by the clause that would be distinct from criminal convictions. We were thinking of someone who might in the past have had some brush with the law and who found—there is no right of appeal in this instance —that in some unexplained way a secret body had had his award reduced or set aside entirely. How is that to be explained to that person? I assume that there is no explanation. That is unsatisfactory.
A person may have suffered criminal damage, having been hurt by the act of a criminal. The only relevant issue is whether he suffered in that instance. That is the matter to be judged. An impersonal body should not be allowed to make character judgments about such people in an unspecified way. For that reason, we are unhappy with the Minister's response.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 255.

Division No. 388]
[9.35 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Allen, Graham
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Armstrong, Hilary
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashton, Joe
Clay, Bob


Battle, John
Clelland, David


Beckett, Margaret
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bell, Stuart
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Corbett, Robin


Bermingham, Gerald
Cryer, Bob


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blunkett, David
Dalyell, Tam


Boateng, Paul
Dewar, Donald


Boyes, Roland
Dixon, Don


Bradley, Keith
Doran, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Eastham, Ken


Buchan, Norman
Fatchett, Derek


Callaghan, Jim
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flannery, Martin






Foster, Derek
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Foulkes, George
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fyfe, Maria
Morgan, Rhodri


Galloway, George
Morley, Elliott


George, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Murphy, Paul


Golding, Mrs Llin
Nellist, Dave


Gordon, Mildred
O'Neill, Martin


Graham, Thomas
Prescott, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Primarolo, Dawn


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Grocott, Bruce
Randall, Stuart


Henderson, Doug
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hinchliffe, David
Richardson, Jo


Holland, Stuart
Rogers, Allan


Hood, Jimmy
Rooker, Jeff


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howells, Geraint
Short, Clare


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


John, Brynmor
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Spearing, Nigel


Leadbitter, Ted
Steinberg, Gerry


Leighton, Ron
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Livsey, Richard
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Turner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Vaz, Keith


McAllion, John
Wall, Pat


McAvoy, Thomas
Wallace, James


McCartney, Ian
Wareing, Robert N.


Macdonald, Calum A.
Wigley, Dafydd


McFall, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McKelvey, William
Wilson, Brian


McLeish, Henry
Winnick, David


McWilliam, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Madden, Max
Worthington, Tony


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wray, Jimmy


Meale, Alan



Michael, Alun
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Mr. Frank Cook.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Butterfill, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Allason, Rupert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amess, David
Carrington, Matthew


Arbuthnot, James
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Ashby, David
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Aspinwall, Jack
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Conway, Derek


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Batiste, Spencer
Cope, Rt Hon John


Beggs, Roy
Couchman, James


Bendall, Vivian
Cran, James


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Benyon, W.
Curry, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Day, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Peter
Dicks, Terry


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dunn, Bob


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dykes, Hugh


Brazier, Julian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Evennett, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fallon, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Favell, Tony


Browne, John (Winchester)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Burns, Simon
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burt, Alistair
Forth, Eric


Butcher, John
Franks, Cecil


Butler, Chris
Freeman, Roger





French, Douglas
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gardiner, George
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maude, Hon Francis


Gill, Christopher
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gow, Ian
Miller, Sir Hal


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gregory, Conal
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moate, Roger


Grist, Ian
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Ground, Patrick
Monro, Sir Hector


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moss, Malcolm


Hanley, Jeremy
Neale, Gerrard


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Neubert, Michael


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Harris, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawkins, Christopher
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayes, Jerry
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hayward, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Heddle, John
Paice, James


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hind, Kenneth
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pawsey, James


Holt, Richard
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Portillo, Michael


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Price, Sir David


Hunter, Andrew
Raffan, Keith


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Redwood, John


Irvine, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Irving, Charles
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Janman, Tim
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Richard


Kilfedder, James
Sackville, Hon Tom


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kirkhope, Timothy
Scott, Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knowles, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knox, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shersby, Michael


Lang, Ian
Sims, Roger


Lawrence, Ivan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Speller, Tony


Lilley, Peter
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


McCrindle, Robert
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stevens, Lewis


Maclean, David
Stokes, Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Sumberg, David


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Summerson, Hugo


Madel, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Major, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maples, John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marlow, Tony
Thorne, Neil


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thornton, Malcolm






Thurnham, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Widdecombe, Ann


Tracey, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Viggers, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wilshire, David


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Waldegrave, Hon William
Winterton, Nicholas


Walden, George
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Walters, Sir Dennis



Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Tellers for the Noes:


Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Watts, John
Mr. Tony Durant.


Wheeler, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 115, in page 78, line 19, leave out from 'where' to 'shall' in line 21 and insert
'the person who sustained the injury is dead, the references to the claimant in subsections (1)(a) and (b) and (2) above'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 111

RIGHT OF APPEAL

Amendments made: No. 116, in page 78, line 32, at beginning insert
'If the Board have determined a claim after a hearing'.

No. 117, in page 78, line 34, leave out
'from a decision of the Board'
and insert 'if they determined it'.

No. 118, page 78, line 36, leave 'from a decision' and insert 'if they determined it'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 113

REIMBURSEMENT AND RECOVERY

Amendments made: No. 119, in page 79, line 15, leave out from 'Board' to end of line 16 and insert
'in a county court for an order for the repayment by the offender to the Board of the whole of the award or such part of it as the court thinks fit.'

No. 120, in page 79, line 17, leave out subsections (2) and (3).— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 114

REIMBURSEMENT AND RECOVERY IN SCOTLAND

Amendment made: No. 121, in page 80, line 6, leave out subsection (2).— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 116

ABOLITION OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 148, in page 80, line 33, at end insert—
'(2) In addition and without prejudice to any powers which the Crown Court may possess to order the exclusion of the public from any proceedings a judge of the Crown Court may order that the hearing of a challenge for cause shall be in camera or in the chambers.'.
This meets a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Cathie). It enables judges to hear jury challenges for cause in private.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 122

DETENTION OF YOUNG OFFENDERS IN SCOTLAND

Amendment made:No. 149, in page 84, line 45, leave out subsection (3).— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 132

OFFENCE OF HAVING ARTICLE WITH BLADE OR POINT IN PUBLIC PLACE

Amendments made: No. 160, in page 87, line 23, leave out 'subsection (4)' and insert 'subsections (4) and (4A)'.

No. 161, in page 87, line 32, leave out from 'place' to end of line 34 and insert—
'(4A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him—'— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 134

OFFENSIVE WEAPONS

Amendment made: No. 162, in page 89, line 12, at end insert—
'(7A) It shall be a defence for any person charged in respect of any conduct of his relating to a weapon to which this section applies—
(a) with an offence under subsection (1) above: or
(b) with an offence under section 50(2) or (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979,
to prove that the conduct in question was only for the purposes of making the weapon available to a museum or gallery to which this subsection applies.
(7B) If a person acting on behalf of a museum or gallery to which subsection (7A) above applies is charged with hiring or lending a weapon to which this section applies, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he had reasonable grounds far believing that the person to whom he lent or hired it would use it only for cultural, artistic or educational purposes.
(7C) Subsection (7A) above applies to a museum or gallery only if it does not distribute profits.
(7D) In this section "museum or gallery" includes any institution which has as its purpose, or one of its purposes, the preservation, display and interpretation of material of historical, artistic or scientific interest and gives the public access to it.'— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 137

TRANSFERRED CHARGES

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 226, in page 90, line 12, leave out from '5' to end of line 14 and insert
'(notices of transfer-procedure)—
(a) in subsection (4), for the words "without the person charged" there shall be substituted the words "in relation to a person charged without his";
(b) in subsection (5)(a), for the word "charged" there shall be substituted the words "in question";
(c) in subsection (6)—
(i) for the words "the person charged" there shall be substituted the words "a person to whom it relates"; and
(ii) for the words "examining justices" there shall be substituted the words "a magistrates' court";
(d) in subsection (7)—
(i) for the word "charged" there shall be substituted the words "to whom the notice of transfer relates", and
(ii) for the words "examining justices" there shall be substituted the words "a magistrates' court";


(e) in subsection (8)(b), for the words "whose written statement is tendered in evidence for the purposes of the notice of transfer" there shall be substituted the words "indicated in the notice of transfer as a proposed witness"; and
(f) in subsection (9)(a)—
(i) in sub-paragraph (i), for the words "the person charged" there shall be substituted the words "any person to whom the notice of transfer relates"; and
(ii) in sub-paragraph (ii), after the word "the", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "place specified by the notice of transfer as the".'

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 227 to 236, 273, 237, 272, and 238.

Mr. Patten: These are drafting amendments. I am sure that one or two hon. Members have specific points to make, so perhaps I may listen to what they have to say before taking the House through the amendments.

Mr. Archer: That is a very handsome offer and it would be churlish of us not to take advantage of it. My simple mind finds it difficult to take in the amendments. It is virtually impossible to follow them without a visual aid. The Criminal Justice Bill that reached the statute book as recently as last year set out a new code of procedures for fraud trials based on the careful and thoughtful report of Lord Roskill's committee. Whether or not we agree with all its recommendations, no one can dispute the thought and expertise that went into the report.
The Government had second thoughts. With this Bill, they are already seeking to make changes to the procedures in the 1987 Act. To understand such changes, we need to refer to a copy of the 1987 Act and, alongside it, a copy of clause 137 of the Bill. The Government have now had third thoughts. They are making changes not only to the Act but to the changes. We need a wider table. We need the 1987 Act, clause 137 of the Bill, and the three amendments. Perhaps the Minister had the material in his mind, but some of us need to do it like that. I shall try to keep my remarks as brief as possible.
What are the relevant provisions of the 1987 Act? It states that the prosecuting authorities or the Secretary of State may decide that a fraud case shall proceed to the Crown court, without the necessity for committal proceedings by the magistrates court. The prosecution can unilaterally dispose of the committal stage. A few years ago, that proposition would have appeared to be startling, but that provision is already on the statute book. It is in the 1987 Act. I apprehend that it would be out of order to discuss its merits today.
Then the 1987 Act provides further that, if that is done, a defendant who has been bailed to appear before a magistrates court does not have to appear, which is not surprising, because that court is no longer dealing with the matter. But section 5(6) of the 1987 Act adds the words:
unless the notice states that it"—
it being the requirement to attend before the magistrates court—
is to continue.
There is no explanation of why, having ordained that a case is to leapfrog the magistrates court, a prosecuting authority should want to provide in the notice that,

nevertheless, the defendant must attend before the magistrates court. But again, that is already on the statute book. It is in the 1987 Act.
Clause 137 provides that if the prosecuting authority states that a case must go to the Crown court without the necessity for committal by the magistrates, but that, nevertheless, the defendant must attend before the magistrates court, the magistrate shall have power to deal with bail. We have no complaints about that. Clause 137 passed through all stages of the Bill without having previously been mentioned because we thought that the Government got it right.
Amendments Nos. 226 and 227 exhibit all the symptoms of drafting amendments, and there Is nothing that I wish to say about them.
But amendment No. 228 is not an amendment to clause 137. It deals with quite a different matter. To understand it, we must again refer to the 1987 Act. If the prosecuting authority airlifts a case from the magistrates court and announces that the defendant shall go, if not directly to jail, at least directly to the Crown court, shall not pass Go and shall not collect £200, clearly there should be some judicial authority with power to examine the matter and decide whether there is enough evidence to warrant a trial at all. Section 6 of the 1987 Act so provides. A defendant may go to a judge of the Crown court and ask him to dismiss the case because there is not enough evidence properly to place him on trial. Amendment No. 228 seems to make some changes to that, although it does not actually change the provision.

Mr. John Patten: indicated assent.

Mr. Archer: I see from the Minister that, so far, even with all the visual aids that I must use, I have understood it.
The changes are largely procedural. But having drawn our attention to the matter and, particularly, having made his generous invitation. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I ask a few further questions.
The 1987 Act does not state what evidence or statements are to accompany the notice of transfer. Section 5(9) simply states that the Attorney-General
shall by regulations make provision requiring … a statement of the evidence.
Presumably, that statement will be in the form of what we normally know as witness statements, made by witnesses to the police.

Mr. John Patten: indicated assent.

Mr. Archer: Again I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that that is right.
Section 6 of the 1987 Act provides that an application to dismiss the charge may be made and the judge may order the person who has given a written statement to supplement it by oral evidence. If that person does not comply with the order, it will not be admissible unless the judge gives leave. That, standing alone, is a little sharp. The judge may take the evidence from the prosecution although it has disregarded his order to have the witness in court to give oral evidence and, therefore, be available for cross-examination. That is a long way from the former position, when not only could a full committal be insisted upon, but the defence could insist that a witness be in court for cross-examination. However, at least under the 1987 Act that evidence would be disregarded unless a judge specifically gave leave to admit it.
Amendment No. 228 appears to reverse that position. The proposed new section 6 provides that if a judge orders a person to give oral evidence and he fails to do so—the prosecution fails to have him there—the judge "may disregard", not "shall disregard", it; not even that it "shall be disregarded" unless the judge positively orders otherwise, but simply that he "may disregard" it.
That raises a succession of questions that I wish to put to the Minister. First, why should the defence not have the right to require, in the magistrates court or elsewhere, that oral evidence be given? Secondly—even if that is left to the discretion of the judge—if he orders that oral evidence should be given, why should that not be enforced? Thirdly, if it is not enforced, why should the statement not automatically be disregarded? Fourthly—this relates speciifically to the amendment—even if it is not automatically disregarded, why should it not be disregarded unless the judge positively orders otherwise? Those four questions each logically follow the one before, and I should be grateful it' the Minister would answer them.

Mr. John Patten: That was a tour de force. I am becoming slightly nervous of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, for the first time during the passage of the Bill. During our recent debate he said that he would surprise me, and perhaps the House, by agreeing with me. A few phrases later, he began, ever so gently, to kneecap me with his arguments. He certainly did not agree with me at the end of that debate. He has now suggested that I have made a very generous offer. He has performed in such a way tonight that he could offer the Criminal Justice Bill 1988 as his subject on "Mastermind", should he ever appear on that programme. He had it absolutely right; there was no need for the visual aids and all the rest of it. He simply compared the 1987 Act with the Bill.
Amendment No. 228 replaces section 6 of the 1987 Act with a revised version that covers the same ground, but in clearer terms. It is important that the terms are as clear as possible. The proposed new section provides that, where an application to dismiss a transfer charge is to be made orally, written notice should first of all be given, which is important. That is to prevent the disruption of court listing schedules. There is also an explicit power to make court rules to cover such matters as the form of notices and other documents, time limits and the procedures to be followed. Finally, the proposed new section, which covers the same ground but in clearer language, improves the description of the documents that will accompany the notice of transfer.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked why we are changing the provisions under which a person charged with fraud—this is an important issue—whose case in transferred to the Crown court may apply orally or in writing to a judge for the charges to be dismissed. Amendment No. 228 does not effect the defendant's right to make such an application, orally or in writing. In drafting the rules, we realised that it would be sensible when the defendant decides to exercise his right to make an oral application that he should give notice in advance of his intention to do so. Amendment No. 228 simply allows the rules to include such a requirement.

Mr. Archer: The Minister, with his characteristic kindness, said how clearly I put the case—

It being Ten o'clock,. further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice Dill [Lords]may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.— [Mr. Maclean.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Archer: The Minister, with characteristic kindness, complimented me on how I had put the case, and then proceeded to demonstrate how I had totally failed to make clear to him the point I was seeking to make.
I accept that, in most respects, amendment No. 228 is a restatement of section 6, but it does not restate it on one vital issue. Section 6 states that, if a judge makes an order that a witness shall attend to give oral evidence and he does not do so, the statement shall be disregarded unless the judge orders otherwise. Amendment No. 228 says that, if the judge makes that order and the witness does not attend, the judge may regard or disregard the statement. In a matter of evidence, what would be onus of proof is here onus of demonstration—if I may coin a phrase—and it has now been changed. That was the point I was trying to make.

Mr. John Patten: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I should appear on "Mastermind" together on this interesting issue.
In response to the right hon. and hon. Gentleman's question, the change that the amendments make is to give the judge discretion to disregard a written statement. I believe that it is right to give the judge such a discretion to make it clear that he is within his rights to disregard the evidence, but that he is not required to do so by the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 227, in page 90, line 17, leave out 'the person charged' and insert
'a person to whom the notice relates'.

No. 228, in page 90, line 25, at end insert—
'(5) The following section shall he substituted for section 6—

"Applications for dismissal.
6.—(1) Where notice of transfer has been given, any person to whom the notice relates, at any time before he is arraigned (and whether or not an indictment has been preferred against him), may apply orally or in writing to the Crown Court sitting at the place specified by the notice of transfer as the proposed place of trial for the charge, or any of the charges, in the case to be dismissed; and the judge shall dismiss a charge (and accordingly quash a count relating to it in any indictment preferred against the applicant) if it appear; to him that the evidence against the applicant would not be sufficient for a jury properly to convict him.
(2) No oral application may be made under subsection (1) above unless the applicant has given the Crown Court sitting at the place specified by the notice of transfer as the proposed place of trial written notice of his intention to make the application.
(3) Oral evidence may be given on such art application only with the leave of the judge or by his order, and the judge shall give leave or make an order only if it appears to him, having regard to any matters stated in the application for leave, that the interests of justice require him to do so.
(4) If the judge gives leave permitting, or makes an order requiring, a person to give oral evidence, but he does not do so, the judge may disregard any document indicating the evidence that he might have given
(5) Dismissal of the charge, or all the charges, against the applicant shall have the same effect as a refusal by examining magistrates to commit for trial,


except that no further proceedings may be brought on a dismissed charge except by means of the preferment of a voluntary bill of indictment.
(6) Crown Court Rules may make provision for the purposes of this section and, without prejudice to the generality of this subsection—
(a) as to the time or stage in the proceedigs at which anything required to be done is to be done (unless the court grants leave to do it at some other time or stage);
(b) as to the contents and form of notices or other documents;
(c) as to the manner in which evidence is to be submitted; and
(d) as to persons to be served with notices or other material.".'— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 141

COMPUTER DATA ABOUT FINGERPRINTS

Amendment made: No. 163, in page 91, line 28, after 'him' insert
', not later than the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which he asks for it,'— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 146

DECISIONS WHERE BAIL REFUSED ON PREVIOUS HEARING

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 278, in page 93, line 31, leave out 'but' and insert
'at the first hearing after that at which the court decided not to grant the defendant bail he may support an application for bail with any argument as to fact or law that he desires (whether or not he has advanced that argument previously). At subsequent hearings'.
This is a replacement amendment to an earlier attempt by the Opposition to tackle the same problem. I hope that the amendment will not detain the House too long because, although it is important, I believe that it is one on which we are about to make progress.
I am sure that the House will agree that there should be no doubt that any individual's liberty is a fundamental right and one that is greatly cherished in this country. I am sure that the House will agree that only in the most serious cases should a person be deprived of their liberty. For that reason, when a person has been charged with an offence, it is his right, under the Bail Act 1976, to be awarded bail unless he comes within the listed exceptions. We are talking, of course, about people who are not convicted.
Since the implementation of the divisional court's decision, which has come to be known as the Nottingham justices' decision, many difficulties have arisen for those applying for bail. It has often become difficult for people to retain their liberty. The court's ruling that only in circumstances in which new information was available should it consider reversing the decision of a previous court, has acted as an effective block to many people being awarded bail. A study carried out by two American lawyers, Brink and Stone, for the Vera institute, as part of their work on bail for the Home Office, found that some courts have adopted a rigid view of that decision. In many cases, if a defendent's request for bail at the first hearing was denied, he was never permitted a second opportunity to re-present the facts.
The practical impact of this has been twofold. First, defendents have not applied for bail at initial hearings, so

as not to risk losing their only chance of success. The Brink and Stone study found that, in many areas, more than half the defendants remanded in custody on their first appearance had not asked for bail. Secondly, bail has been refused in cases in which it would have been appropriate to grant it because the lawyers have not had enough time to gather all the relevant facts. There can be no doubt that there have been cases in which defendents have been denied bail in one court when another magistrate would have granted it to them.
The sum total of all this has been to help to swell the number of prisoners on remand, and the impact of that on our prisons and on pressure on police cells has been evident recently.
We raised that issue in Committee. When we tried to persuade the Minister to reverse the Nottingham justices' decision, his attitude was that the Government did not think it right to allow individuals to shop around for a more sympathetic bench. That is to deny the nature of bail decisions, which are essentially subjective.
The Government attempted partly to deal with this problem by restating in clause 146 the courts' obligation to consider bail on every occasion, but we believe that that fails because it also restates that courts need not hear arguments of fact and of law that they have previously considered. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said in Committee, it is difficult for the court or for lawyers to establish exactly what facts have already been presented to the court. The records of the court do not include notes of the facts that were relied on when a previous request for bail was made—and those involved in the process may be completely different. The magistrate, the clerk and even the defendant's lawyer may have changed.
Our amendment is an attempt at least to improve the present position. It proposes to oblige the courts to consider fact and law on the first two applications for bail. That would allow a solicitor to ask for bail on the first application without the fear that the client might lose any chance of bail should he not succeed, even if he had not had the opportunity to gather together all the facts. I understand that some courts—Newcastle-upon-Tyne is a case in point—already operate this procedure. It was the practice of the Nottingham magistrates at the time of the Nottingham justices' decision. Lord Justice Donaldson, as he then was, acknowledged that there were often further matters to be considered at a second hearing which had not been available at the first.
Not only will our amendent go some way to improving matters but it will bring practice into line with the original intention. I understand from our discussions with the Minister that we may be pushing against an open door tonight; he has said that he has reconsidered the matter since Committee, and we are grateful to his officials for their help with the technical wording of the amendment. Perhaps the Government do listen on occasion, and if the Minister accepts the amendment we shall welcome that.

Mr. John Patten: We had some lengthy and interesting debates in Committee. I have carefully considered the points made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and her hon. Friends and I am persuaded by them. So, with arms suitably folded on this occasion, I shall say that I accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 147

REMANDS IN CUSTODY FOR MORE THAN EIGHT DAYS

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I beg to move amendment No. 202, in page 94, line 12, after 'of, insert 'up to'.
The amendment deals with time limits on remand hearings. The matter was canvassed at some length in Committee when we considered the principle and content of the Government's proposals. In general, the Opposition parties do not accept a move which means that prisoners can be remanded for 28 days after the initial remand hearing. We had an insight into the Government's thinking on the issue when the Minister responded to the debate in Committee. He sought to argue that it was not the best use of prison officers' time to turn up every eight days to attend remand hearings, and that they could be employed usefully in other prison duties. In fairness to the Minister, he also claimed that it would encourage the courts to take a more active role in case management.
This is the classic confrontation between, on the one hand, civil liberties and the interests of prisoners and their families, which we often forget on these occasions, and administrative convenience, on the other.
That is not to say that Opposition Members do not recognise the problems of the present system. As we have heard in Committee and on Report, there are far too many prisoners on remand. Cases take too long to come to trial or to he disposed of by pleas of guilty. Valuable court time is taken up by the weekly ritual of remand hearings, but I do not understand why individual prisoners should have to pay the price in the curtailment of basic civil liberties.
The present position on remand hearings is set out in section 128 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Under its provisions, an accused may be remanded by way of detention at a police station for up to three days, or up to eight days if in custody either in prison or in a remand centre. However, there are provisions for the period to be extended if the accused consents and is represented by a solicitor or counsel and the provisions are fully explained to him.
Many prisoners opt for the eight-day remand rather than for a longer period because it is easier for solicitors to obtain instructions from their clients if they attend court every eight days, and arrangements can be made for prisoners to see their families. The point about obtaining instructions is important and it is one on which I sought to convince the Minister in Committee. I think that, in part, he conceded the point. Many remand centres are some distance from local courts. From my area it takes about two and a half or three hours by car to visit the local remand centre. The legal aid authorities do not allow travelling time for solicitors or counsel to see their clients in remand centres, so they are obliged to instruct agents. But that is always second best, because the accused wants to see his lawyer, and agents do not always take as detailed instructions as they should.
The principle of access to justice is at stake. If 28-day remands become the norm—that will undoubtedly happen—after the first hearing solicitors and clients will encounter difficulties in taking full and detailed instructions, especially in rural areas, because they will be unable to make arrangements to see their clients who are on remand. Therefore, access to justice will be denied.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his remarks have greater force when one considers that many prisoners from London are being held on remand in police cells in places such as Cornwall, Durham, and all over the country, to which their solicitors cannot possibly travel to take instructions

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for making that point. It advances our argument and shows why we are concerned about this problem.

Mr. David Ashby: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the disgraceful conditions in Lincoln prison for those who wish to take instructions from their clients? Prison officers breathe over one's shoulder, listen to every word and do not give anyone a chance to take proper instructions.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point so well. On many occasions, my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has made clear to Home Office Ministers the problems that solicitors and their clients encounter at Risley remand centre.
There are problems with solicitors and clients meeting to take full instructions, but, given the distances involved, families also find it difficult to visit their relatives who are on remand. When prisoners are taken to court every eight days, their families can visit them.
The issue of bail applications was canvassed at length in Committee. Clause 147 makes it clear that the accused's right to apply for bail at any time will not be affected. The Minister made that point clear in Committee. What does that mean in practice? Practitioners know that there will be practical problems in making bail applications in cases where there has been a 28-day remand. Difficulties are encountered in some parts of the country in bringing prisoners to court. We fully understand and appreciate prison officers' problems, but facilities should be available to enable prisoners to attend court. If the clause is passed unamended, we can foresee further problems arising.
How does a prisoner give instructions to his legal advisers if he has been on remand for 28 days but wishes to make a bail application because of changed circumstances from the previous bail application or the first remand hearing? His legal adviser will not be at the end of a telephone or easily available for consultation. Those problems were canvassed in Committee, but the answers that we received were not convincing. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
In Committee we were prepared to make a number of constructive proposals about how the Government could overcome the difficulties facing the prison service and the courts. It is clear that the prison authorities must be given greater resources and better remand facilities. The Government could introduce legislation to ensure that cases are heard in magistrates courts by a certain date. A time limit should be set from the time that a person is charged to the disposal of the case. That would concentrate minds wonderfully and the current backlog of cases would be cleared. We have not only the problem of the number of prisoners on remand but the delay in the number of cases coming to court for disposal. That


increases the applications that legal advisers have to make. Remand hearings are held needlessly because of delays in bringing forward cases for trial or disposal.
My fear, which was expressed in Committee, is that 28-day remands will increase those delays. At least now the prisoner can make weekly complaints about delays, and during those applications magistrates can put pressure on the Crown prosecution service. We fully appreciate the problems that that service has had in recent months, but the Minister tells us that the situation is improving so cases should be brought on much quicker. However, if 28-day remands become the norm, it will remove those opportunities for pressure to be put on the service and the court can effectively put aside a case for a month at a time.
There is general agreement about the problem of the number of prisoners on remand awaiting trial, but we disagree fundamentally with the Government on the solution. An amendment in Committee sought for the first remand application to be followed by a second application in eight days, moving on to 28-day remands, but the Government refused to accept that amendment.
Amendment No. 202 is different because it gives magistrates discretion whether to go on to 28-day remands. In other words, it gives the courts an opportunity to set remand hearings during a period of up to 28 days. Therefore, as I have said, it would give magistrates discretion whether to remand for the full period or for a lesser period. If the magistrates felt that 28 days was too long, they could set the remand at a lesser period.
That is a fair compromise. We have made it clear that we do not like the principle, but we believe that it is better to amend the Bill at this stage and for the Government to accept a compromise amendment, and I urge the Minister to do so.

Mr. John Patten: I have listened with great care to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). I know how concerned he is about equal access to justice, the geography of justice and the problems of rural areas. However, I would seek to persuade him and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) not to divide the House on this issue. Perhaps to roll the pitch, in the previous debate on amendment No. 278, I showed the Government's willingness to listen by accepting an amendment tabled by the official Opposition. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady will consider what I have to say in the light of that.
Clause 147 already achieves what the hon. Gentleman has sought to emphasise in his amendment. Let me rapidly explain why I think that the amendment might confuse the courts by the following example. A defendant, perhaps from Ynys Môn, is before the court. He or she has been remanded in custody on at least one previous occasion. The court hears any representations from the prosecution or the defence in the normal way. Having done that, the court then goes on to ask itself when it should be possible for the next stage in the proceedings to begin.
Let us say that no further progress would be possible for six or eight weeks, for various reasons. There is no point in bringing the defendant back to court, unless his circumstances have changed in the meantime, within the maximum period of 28 days. After the maximum period of 28 days, the court considers the total period that the defendant will have spent in custody, and it is important

that the court does that. If, having done so, it still thinks that a custodial remand is the right course, it can remand the defendant for 28 days. The defendant can apply for bail if his circumstances change at any time.
But let us suppose that his circumstances do not change, or for some reason he does not come to the court within the 28 days, and simply returns to the court at the end of the allotted time. Only two weeks now remain in my six-week example before the next stage in the proceedings can be expected, the six weeks then being up. If the parties agree that matters can be taken earlier, all well and good. If one asks for more time, the court will want to inquire closely into the reasons for the delay.
But suppose, happily enough, the preparations for the progress of the trial are exactly on course and the case will be ready for hearing in exactly two weeks' time. Then the court will remand the defendant for that two-week period. I can assure the House that clause 147 expressly forbids the court to remand for any longer period in those circumstances. What is crucial here is the requirement on the court to set a date by which it expects to make progress, a date when the proceedings will next move on. The court is required to take positive control over the progress of the case, and I know that that is welcomed by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn.
I want to say three things to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady that I hope will help to reassure them.
We intend to test these new arrangements by way of experiment in a number of selected areas. If the prophets of doom, those who say that things will go badly wrong, prove right, the Government will not wish to extend the experiments any further. The Government would be totally wrong to do so, because the whole point is to make things better for the defendant and to save wasted appearances and productions in court.
Perhaps most tellingly, I remind the House that the clause 147 arrangements which are before the House can be brought into force only by order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That means that that procedure will have to go through another place and through this House to see whether experiments take place and whether any subsequent extension on a regional or national basis should occur.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I am most grateful to the Minister. Would he also add that steps will be taken to ensure that a complete change is made in the arrangements for instructions being taken by lawyers from their clients in prison? As we have heard from the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who has considerable experience of these things, and from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), and as many other hon. Members know, it is virtually impossible to hold proper conferences in some prisons and other custodial establishments because of the staffing and time constraints placed upon solicitors and counsel.
It sounds to me as though the hon. Gentleman is not aware that, for example, one is not allowed to hold more than, say, five hours maximum of conference on any one day with an individual client in a remand centre such as Risley because of the timetabling of the establishment's meals, and so on. In a complicated case, that means that there have to be repeated visits by solicitors and counsel, which are extremely expensive for the public purse and extremely disturbing and delaying for the prisoner.

Mr. Patten: Of course I understand the points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, which were also made very forcibly by my hon Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashley) when he intervened to discuss the position in one particular prison in Lincoln. Of course we will look seriously at the problems raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend and I shall draw them to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who is responsible for prison matters. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government will have further proposals about these matters in the not-too-distant future.
On the basis of what I have said and the undertakings that I have given, particularly about procedures that will have to be followed, I hope that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I appreciate that the Minister is trying to be as helpful as he can in these circumstances, but there is an underlying principle here. We are establishing a system in clause 147 that means effectively that, on the second remand, magistrates would have no option—if, as in his example, a case would take six weeks to come to the next stage—but to remand for 28 days.
Let us take the Minister's example. In effect, the court would be saying that, in view of the constraints for solicitors and for counsel and of the distances involved, 28 days would pass before the solicitor could take adequate instructions from his client or counsel in an appropriate case. That principle is wrong. The amendment simply seeks to state that, in appropriate cases, the magistrates may decide not to remand for the full 28 days. They may decide to remand for 15 days or 21 days, but there will always be an opportunity for solicitors to make representations for it to be less than 28 days.
We understand that the Minister is attempting to be helpful, but this is an important principle of access to justice and, for that reason, we believe that we should press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 253.

Division No. 389]
[10.30 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Allen, Graham
Clay, Bob


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clelland, David


Armstrong, Hilary
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashdown, Paddy
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ashton, Joe
Corbett, Robin


Battle, John
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beckett, Margaret
Cryer, Bob


Beggs, Roy
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bell, Stuart
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bermingham, Gerald
Dewar, Donald


Blunkett, Oavid
Dixon, Don


Boateng, Paul
Doran, Frank


Boyes, Roland
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bradley, Keith
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fearn, Ronald


Buchan, Norman
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Caborn, Richard
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Callaghan, Jim
Flannery, Martin


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foster, Derek


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foulkes, George


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Fyfe, Maria





Galloway, George
Morley, Elliott


George, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Murphy, Paul


Golding, Mrs Llin
Nellist, Dave


Gordon, Mildred
O'Neill, Martin


Graham, Thomas
Pendry, Tom


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pike, Peter L.


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Prescott, John


Grocott, Bruce
Primarolo, Dawn


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Henderson, Doug
Randall, Stuart


Hinchliffe, David
Richardson, Jo


Holland, Stuart
Robertson, George


Hood, Jimmy
Rogers, Allan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Rooker, Jeff


Howells, Geraint
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Salmond, Alex


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Short, Clare


John, Brynmor
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Leighton, Ron
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Livsey, Richard
Spearing, Nigel


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Steinberg, Gerry


Loyden, Eddie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McAllion, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McAvoy, Thomas
Turner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian
Vaz, Keith


Macdonald, Calum A.
Wall, Pat


McFall, John
Wallace, James


McKelvey, William
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McLeish, Henry
Wareing, Robert N.


McWilliam, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Madden, Max
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Winnick, David


Meale, Alan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Michael, Alun
Worthington, Tony


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wray, Jimmy


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)



Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tellers for the Ayes:


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Mr. Frank Cook.


Morgan, Rhodri





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butcher, John


Allason, Rupert
Butler, Chris


Amos, Alan
Butterfill, John


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carrington, Matthew


Ashby, David
Carttiss, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Cash, William


Atkins, Robert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Colvin, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Conway, Derek


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bendall, Vivian
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Couchman, James


Benyon, W.
Cran, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Curry, David


Boswell, Tim
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bottomley, Peter
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Day, Stephen


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Devlin, Tim


Bowis, John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dicks, Terry


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dorrell, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Dover, Den


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dunn, Bob


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Durant, Tony


Browne, John (Winchester)
Dykes, Hugh


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Burns, Simon
Evennett, David






Fallon, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Favell, Tony
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Madel, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Major, Rt Hon John


Forman, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mans, Keith


Forth, Eric
Maples, John


Franks, Cecil
Marland, Paul


Freeman, Roger
Marlow, Tony


French, Douglas
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gardiner, George
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gill, Christopher
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maude, Hon Francis


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gow, Ian
Mellor, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Miller, Sir Hal


Gregory, Conal
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger


Ground, Patrick
Monro, Sir Hector


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moss, Malcolm


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neale, Gerrard


Hanley, Jeremy
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Harris, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hawkins, Christopher
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayes, Jerry
Page, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patnick, Irvine


Heddle, John
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Pawsey, James


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hind, Kenneth
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Portillo, Michael


Holt, Richard
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Price, Sir David


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Redwood, John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hunter, Andrew
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Irvine, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Irving, Charles
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jack, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jackson, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


Janman, Tim
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kilfedder, James
Shersby, Michael


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sims, Roger


Kirkhope, Timothy
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knapman, Roger
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Speller, Tony


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Knowles, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knox, David
Squire, Robin


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lang, Ian
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Lawrence, Ivan
Steen, Anthony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stern, Michael


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stevens, Lewis


Lightbown, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lilley, Peter
Sumberg, David


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Summerson, Hugo


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McCrindle, Robert
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Maclean, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)





Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wheeler, John


Thorne, Neil
Whitney, Ray


Thornton, Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Thurnham, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wilkinson, John


Tracey, Richard
Wilshire, David


Trippier, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Nicholas


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wolfson, Mark


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Waldegrave, Hon William
Woodcock, Mike


Walden, George



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Noes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Watts, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 151

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ORDERS UNDER SS.4 AND II OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT I98I RELATING TO TRIALS ON INDICTMENT

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 96, line 8, leave out clause 151.— [Mr. John Patten]

Clause 152

SUMMARY OFFENCE OF POSSESSION OF INDECENT PHOTOGRAPH OF A CHILD

Mr. Bermingham: I beg to move amendment No. 195, in page 96, line 14, after 'any', insert 'grossly'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 199, in page 96, line 24, at end insert—
'(3) A photograph of a child shall be deemed to be grossly indecent for the purposes of this Act where its production appears to the court to have involved the exploitation for sexual purposes of a child.'.

No. 200, in clause 153, page 96, line 33, at end insert 'grossly'.

No. 201, in clause 153, page 97, line 1, at end insert—
'(3) A photograph of a child shall be deemed to be grossly indecent for the purposes of this Act where its production appears to the court to have involved the exploitation for sexual purposes of a child.'.

Mr. Bermingham: Clause 152 refers to indecency. If those who possess indecent photographs— [Interruption.] I hope that one or two Conservative Members will listen——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would help the House and the hon. Member if the conversations on both sides of the House took place outside the Chamber.

Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the issue is important. It affects young children and, in turn, the way in which we conduct business in our courts. In the 1970s, indecency was discussed in the English courts, especially in regard to obscenity. A circus developed. Experts said that something was, or was not, indecent. Eventually, the Court of Appeal said that that sort of caper had to stop. We are afraid that, because of the way in which clause 152 is drafted, that circus will develop again.
The word "indecency" is loose. The amendments merely insert the word "grossly". We must remember that


for a photograph to be taken of a child in indecent positions—these are indelicate matters about which to talk —there must be a victim. These photographs are not constructed. [Interruption.] It is lamentable that, when discussing a subject such as this, I see that the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) finds it more convenient to have a conversation than to listen to the debate. Perhaps I can attract his attention.
This is a grave matter. We must not permit loose wording in statutes which would allow people to seek to avoid that which we seek to legislate against—the exploitation of children. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment and the consequent amendments which merely seek to insert the word "grossly". That word would tighten the definition and make clear to the courts that which we seek to ban or to legislate against.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I shall be brief. At one time a man could have a house full of dreadful child pornography, which children have to be procured to produce and which can corrupt and entice others, and the defence was always that he had it for his own use. The Bill removes that defence and makes it a criminal offence to possess child pornography. That will protect children from being procured to produce the material, and will prevent adults from being enticed and corrupted to think about children in a sexual way. We applaud that.
The word "grossly" does not need to be added, because most courts are sensible enough to know when dealing with child pornography that such cases are indecent. Parents and courts are sick and tired of merchants peddling such stuff, to the disadvantage of Britain's children. We can rely on the good sense of our courts and public opinion.

Mr. John Patten: I know how much the Opposition support the general thrust of clauses 152 and 153, and we welcome that support. I also know of the Opposition's continuing anxiety about the interpretation of the words used in the drafting of the clauses, and I know how strongly the whole House feels about the exploitation of children.
My hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) summed up the feeling of the House when he spoke about his contempt for pornography. I agree with my hon. Friend that the word "grossly" may he otiose or unnecessary. I shall explain to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) why that is so, because I know that he wishes to improve matters for children and to provide better justice for them.
Over many years our courts have become used to interpreting the words "obscene" and "indecent". The hon. Gentleman reminded us of the distasteful circus that used to exist in some judicial circles. Experts, literary critics and others used to be called to say whether this or that was indecent or obscene. That was an industry not just in the 1970s but in the 1960s. One of my distinguished constituents, lamentably deceased, was Sir Basil Blackwell. He was the only man ever to stand up in a court and say that he had been corrupted by something that he had read. It was brave of him to do that.
The introduction into law of the word "gross" or grossly" to qualify indecent would lead to the reinvention of the circus that we have talked about, because it is a new

concept. For a decade we have had a law dealing with indecent photographs, films and videos, and there is no evidence that it has caused the courts any problems. We have searched through the cases to establish whether there has ever been discussion in court of difficulties of interpretation of the word "indecent". There has certainly never been any suggestion that an individual member of a family has ever been prosecuted or persecuted in any way for taking innocent snapshots of his children.

Mr. Norman Buchan: In that case, why did the Government support the private Members' Bill dealing with indecency, which used the word "grossly" to define the word offensive?

Mr. Patten: The Government believe that, for the purposes of the Bill, the tests of indecency and obscenity, which are well known to the courts with reference to pornography, are the right tests to apply.
I believe that the Bill substantially advances the cause of children's justice by making the simple possession of indecent photographs a criminal offence and by placing on the accused the burden of proof of showing why he is in possession of photographs that are judged by the courts to be indecent. I entirely appreciate what the hon. Member for St. Helen's, South has said and the spirit in which he made his remarks, but I do not think that his amendment would improve matters, given that the courts have great experience of the interpretation of the word "indecent". On those grounds, I would ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.

Mr. Bermingham: I have listened to the Minister's remarks with care, because I think that he and I are ad idem in what we seek to do. The difference between us is that I am perhaps more cautious than he is. My caution is based on the experience of the courtroom and the arguments that apply there, and I find that clause 152 lacks clarity in part.
I do not propose to press the amendment to a Division. I shall merely put down a marker. I greatly fear that with the passage of time, and given the lamentable views of certain persons in this country, we may find that the word "indecency" is not enough to protect children from exploitation by those who seek to make a commercial profit from despicable merchandise. That is why I sought to tighten the law and make it more difficult for those who seek to defend the possession of nauseating material. The Government are not with me on this issue; so be it. The warning shot has been fired, and we may have to return to the matter at a later date.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 164, in page 96, line 15, after 'child' insert
'(meaning in this section a person under the age of 16)'—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 153

POSSESSION OF INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN: SCOTLAND

Amendments made: No. 57, in page 96, line 34, after 'child', insert '(meaning in this section a person under the age of 16)'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 160

NORTHERN IRELAND

Amendments made: No. 79, in page 101, line 7, leave out '(including Schedule 2)'.

No. 229, in page 101, line 11, leave out '(2) and (4)'. — [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 163

COMMENCEMENT

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 165, in page 102, line 5, leave out from 'relates' to end of line 7 and insert—

'(a) to the addition of two subsections at the end of section 8 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986;
(b) to the insertion of a new subsection in section 24 of that Act; and
(c) to the substitution of two new sections for section 26 of that Act;'

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 166, 66, 67 and 169 to 172.

Mr. Patten: The amendments cover a lot of paper, but in substance they are drafting amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 68, in page 102, line 12, at end insert—
'section [Body samples-Northern Ireland];'

No. 230, page 102, line 12, at end insert—
'section 136; section 137;'.

No. 231, in page 102, line 17, at end insert—
'section 112A(1) of the Land Registration Act 1925;'.

No. 166, in page 102, line 22, at end insert—
'section 67(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967;'.

No. 66, in page 102, line 24, at end insert
'sections 171 and 368 of and Schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975;'.

No. 67, in page 102, line 26, at end insert
'section 52(7) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982;'.

No. 169, page 102, line 26, at end insert
'the Criminal Justice Act 1982;'

No. 232, in page 102, line 28, after '1985' insert—
'the Criminal Justice Act 1987;the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987;'.

No. 233, in page 102, line 31, at end insert—
'the Criminal Justice Act 1987;'.

No. 13, in page 102, line 42, at end insert—
'section [Torture];
section [Prosecution for torture];
section [Extradition under 1870 Act];
section [Extradition under Part )];
section [Application to Channel Islands, Isle of Man and colonies];'.

No. 170, in page 102, line 42, at end insert—'section 68;'.

No. 171, in page 103, line 7, at end insert
'Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 1967;'.

No. 172, in page 103, line 15, at end insert—
'(7) Section 154 above shall come into force—
(a) on the day appointed under section 23(2) of the Video Recording Act 1984 for the coming into force of the provisions of that Act not in force at the passing of this Act; or
(b) on the passing of this Act,

whichever is the later.'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 164

EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 41, in page 103, line 17, leave out 'and 20' and insert,
'[Application of general extradition arrangements to Colonies] and [Special extradition arrangements-Colonies] '.

No. 80, in page 103, line 19, leave out '(including Schedule 1)'.

No. 54, in page 103, line 28, at end insert 'section 93;'

No. 176, in page 103, line 31, after 'to' insert '113 and'.

No. 14, in page 103, line 32, at end insert—
'section [Torture];
section [Extradition under 1870 Act];
section [Extradition under Part I];'.

No. 59, in page 103, line 36, at end insert, 'section 162'.

No. 81, in page 103, line 42, leave out '(including Schedule 3)'.

No. 15, in page 104, line 1, at end insert—
'section [Torture];
section [Prosecution for torture];
section [Extradition under 1870 Act];
section [Extradition under Part I] ;'.

No. 10, in page 104, line 6, at end insert—
'section [Crown Court proceedings-orders restricting or preventing reports or restricting public access];'

No. 175, in page 104, line 8, at end insert, 'section 162;'

No. 82, in page 104, line 15, leave out
'(including Part II of Schedule 5]'.

No. 55 in page 104, line 19, at end insert—
'((4A) Section [Enforcement of Northern Ireland orders in Scotland] above extends only to Scotland and Northern
Ireland.'.

No. 69, in page 104, line 20, after '138 (c)', insert
'[Body samples—Northern Ireland]'.

No. 83, in page 104, line 26, leave out
',including Schedule 13 to this Act'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Amendment made: No. 196—New schedule—

'BODY SAMPLES-NORTHERN IRELAND

Scope of Schedule

1. This Schedule applies—
(a) to an offence (whether at common law or under any enactment) specified in paragraph 2 below;
(b) to an offence specified in paragraph 3 below;
(c) to an offence not mentioned in either of those paragraphs—
(i) for which a person of 21 years of age or over and of full capacity (not previously convicted) may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years; and
(ii) which is serious for the purposes of this Schedule.

2. The offences mentioned in paragraph 1(a) above are-
(a) treason;
(b) murder;
(c) manslaughter;
(d) rape;
(e) kidnapping;
(f) incest with girl under the age of 14;
(g) buggery with—
(i) a boy under the age of 16; or
(ii) a person who has not consented; and
(h) indecent assault which constitutes an act of gross indecency.

3. The offences mentioned in paragraph 1(b) above are—
(a) causing an explosion likely to endanger life or property contrary to section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883;
(b) intercourse with a girl under the age of 14 contrary to section 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885;
(c) causing death by reckless driving contrary to Article 139 (1) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981;


(d) the following offences against the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981—
(i) possession of firearm with intent to injure contrary to Article 17;
(ii) use of firearm or imitation firearm to resist arrest contrary to Article 18(1); and
(iii) carrying firearm with criminal intent contrary to Article 19;
(e) hostage-taking contrary to section 1 of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982;
(f) hi-jacking contrary to section 1 of the Aviation Security Act 1982; and
(g) torture contrary to section [Torture] above.

4.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, an offence not mentioned in paragraph 2 or 3 above is serious for the purposes of this Schedule only if its commission—
(a) has led to any of the consequences mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) below; or
(b) is intended or is likely to lead to any of those consequences.

(2) An offence which consists of making a threat is serious for the purposes of this Schedule if carrying out the threat would be likely to lead to any of the consequences specified in sub-paragraph (3) below.

(3) The consequences mentioned in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above are—
(a) serious harm to the security of the State or to public order;
(b) serious interference with the administration of justice or with the investigation of offences or of a particular offence;
(c) the death of any person;
(d) serious injury to any person;
(e) substantial financial gain to any person; and
(f) serious financial loss to any person.

(4) Loss is serious for the purposes of this Schedule if, having regard to all the circumstances, it is serious for the person who suffers it.

(5) In this paragraph "injury" includes any disease and any impairment of a person's physical or mental condition.

5. A person arrested under section 12(1)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 is to be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as having been arrested on suspicion of involvement in an offence to which this Schedule applies and any reference in the following provisions of this Schedule to such an offence includes a reference to being or having been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which Part IV of that Act applies.

Interpretation

6.—(1) In this Schedule—
"appropriate consent" means—
(a) in relation to a person who has attained the age of 17 years, the consent of that person;
(b) in relation to a person who has not attained that age but has attained the age of 14 years, the consent of that person and his parent or guardian; and
(c) in relation to a person who has not attained the age of 14 years, the consent of his parent or guardian;
"intimate sample" means a sample of blood, semen or any other tissue fluid, urine or pubic hair, or a swab taken from any of a person's body orifices except his mouth;
"non-intimate sample" means—
(a) a sample of hair other than pubic hair;
(b) a sample taken from a nail or from under a nail;
(c) a sample of saliva;
(d) a swab taken from a person's mouth;
(e) a swab taken from any other part of a person's body except a body orifice other than his mouth;
(f) a footprint or a similar impression of any part of a person's body other than a part of his hand;

"parent or guardian" means in the case of a child or young person in the care of the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland or a Health and Social Services Board, that Department or Board; and
"the terrorism provisions" means—
(a) section 12(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984; and
(b) any provision conferring a power of arrest or detention and contained in an order under section 13 of that Act.

(2) A person is in police detention for the purposes of this Schedule if—
(a) he has been taken to a police station after being arrested for an offence; or
(b) he is arrested at a police station after attending voluntarily at the station or accompanying a constable to it,
and is detained there or is detained elsewhere in the charge of a constable, except that a person who is at a court after being charged is not in police detention for those purposes.

Intimate samples

7.—(1) An intimate sample may be taken from a person in police detention only—
(a) if a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent authorises it to be taken; and
(b) if the appropriate consent is given.

(2) An officer may only give an authorisation if he has reasonable grounds—
(a) for suspecting the involvement of the person from whom the sample is to be taken in an offence to which this Schedule applies; and
(b) for believing that the sample will tend to confirm or disprove his involvement.

(3) An officer may give an authorisation under sub-paragraph (1) above orally or in writing but, if he gives it orally, he shall confirm it in writing as soon as is practicable.

(4) The appropriate consent must be given in writing.

(5) Where—
(a) an authorisation has been given; and
(b) it is proposed that an intimate sample shall be taken in pursuance of the authorisation,
an officer shall inform the person from whom the sample is to be taken—
(i) of the giving of the authorisation; and
(ii) of the grounds for giving it.

(6) The duty imposed by sub-paragraph (5)(ii) above includes a duty to state the nature of the offence in which it is suspected that the person from whom the sample is to be taken has been involved.

(7) If an intimate sample is taken from a person—
(a) the authorisation by virtue of which it was taken;
(b) the grounds for giving the authorisation; and
(c) the fact that the appropriate consent was given,
shall be recorded in writing as soon as is practicable after the sample is taken.

(8) An intimate sample, other than a sample of urine, may only be taken from a person by a registered medical practitioner.

(9) Where the appropriate consent to the taking of an intimate sample from a person was refused without good cause, in any proceedings against that person for an offence—
(a) the court, in determining—
(i) whether to commit that person for trial; or
(ii) whether there is a case to answer; and
(b) the court or jury, in determining whether that person is guilty of the offence charged,
may draw such inferences from the refusal as appear proper; and the refusal may, on the basis of such inferences, be treated as, or as capable of amounting to, corroboration of any evidence against the person in relation to which the refusal is material.

(10) Nothing in this paragraph affects Articles 141 to 152 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.

Other Samples

8.—(1) Except as provided by this paragraph, a non-intimate sample may not be taken from a person without the appropriate consent.

(2) Consent to the taking of a non-intimate sample must be given in writing.

(3) A non-intimate sample may be taken from a person without the appropriate consent if—
(a) he is in police detention or is being held in custody by the police on the authority of a court; and
(b) an officer of at least the rank of superintendent authorises it to be taken without the appropriate consent.

(4) An officer may only give an authorisation under sub-paragraph (3) above if he has reasonable grounds—
(a) for suspecting the involvement of the person from whom the sample is to be taken in an offence to which this Schedule applies; and
(b) for believing that the sample will tend to confirm or disapprove his involvement.

(5) An officer may give an authorisation under sub-paragraph (3) above orally or in writing but, if he gives it orally, he shall confirm it in writing as soon as is practicable.

(6) Where—
(a) an authorisation has been given; and
(b) it is proposed that a non-intimate sample shall be taken in pursuance of the authorisation,
an officer shall inform the person from whom the sample is to be taken—
(i) of the giving of the authorisation; and
(ii) of the grounds for giving it.

(7) The duty imposed by sub-paragraph (6)(ii) above includes a duty to state the nature of the offence in which it is suspected that the person from whom the sample is to be taken has been involved.

(8) If a non-intimate sample is taken from a person by virtue of subsection (3) above—
(a) the authorisation by virtue of which it was taken; and
(b) the grounds for giving the authorisation,
shall be recorded in writing as soon as is practicable after the sample is taken.

Destruction of samples

9.—(l) If—
(a) a sample is taken from a person in connection with the investigation of an offence; and
(b) he is cleared of that offence.
it must be destroyed as soon as is practicable after the conclusion of the proceedings.

(2) If—
(a) a sample is taken from a person in connection with such an investigation; and
(b) it is decided that he shall not be prosecuted for the offence and he has not admitted it and been dealt with by way of being cautioned by a constable,
it must be destroyed as soon as is practicable after that decision is taken.

(3) If—
(a) a sample is taken from a person in connection with the investigation of an offence; and
(b) that person is not suspected of having committed the offence,
it must be destroyed as soon as it has fulfilled the purpose for which it was taken.

(4) Proceedings which are discontinued are to be treated as concluded for the purposes of this paragraph.

(5) Nothing in this paragraph—
(a) affects any power conferred by paragraph 18(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971; or
(b) applies to a person arrested or detained under the terrorism provisions.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Schedule 1

AMENDMENTS OF EXTRADITION ACT I87O, BACKING OF WARRANTS (REPUBLIC OF IRELAND) ACT I965 AND FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACT I967

Amendments made: No. 190, in page 106, line 30, at end insert—
'(2A) In section 26, in the definition of "police magistrate", for the words from "a" to the end there shall be substituted the words "the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate or a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate

designated by the Lord Chancellor for the purposes of this Act and the Acts that may be cited together with it as the Extradition Acts 1870 to 1935".'

No. 260, in line 47, at end insert—
'(1A) If the chief officer or chief constable immediately informs the court that he intends to make such an application, the court shall make an order providing for the detention of the person in question, or directing that he shall not be released except on bail.
(1B) Rules of Court may specify—
(a) a period within which the chief officer or chief constable must make such an application unless the Court grants a longer period; and
(b) a period within which the court must comply with such an application.'.

No. 261, in line 48, leave out
'refuses to state a case'
and insert
'fails to comply with an application under subsection (1) above within the period specified in Rules of Court'.

No. 262, in page 107, leave out lines 6 to 14 and insert—
'(4) An order made by a court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland under subsection (1A) above shall cease to have effect if
(a) the High Court dismisses the appeal; and
(b) the chief officer or chief constable does not immediately—
(i) apply for leave to appeal to the House of Lords; or
(ii) inform the court that he intends to apply for leave.
(5) An order made by a court in Scotland under subsection (1A) above shall cease to have effect if the court dismisses the appeal.'

No. 263, in line 20, at end insert—
'(6A) The House of Lords may exercise any powers of the High Court under subsection (3) above and subsection (4) above shall apply to them as it applies to that Court.
(6B) Subject to subsections (4) and (5) above, an order under subsection (1A) above shall have effect so long as the case is pending.
(6C) For the purposes of this section a case is pending (unless proceedings are discontinued) until (disregarding any power of a court to grant leave to take any step out of time) there is no step that the chief officer or chief constable can take.'

No. 264, in line 26, after 'Court', insert
', other than the reference in subsection (6A) above,'.

No. 276, leave out line 29 and insert—
'(e) subsections (6) and (6A) shall be omitted; and, in'.

No. 63, in page 109, line 27, at end insert
'(2B) The High Court of Justiciary may, by Act of Adjournal, make rules as to the procedure for service under subsection (2) above in Scotland.'.

No. 191, in line 32, leave out
'In subsection (5) of section 7 (proceedings for committal) for the words'
and insert
'In subsection (1)(a) of section 6 (arrest for purposes of committal) for the words "a metropolitan stipendary magistrate or by" there shall be substituted the words—
"(i) the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate or a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate designated for the purposes of this Act by the Lord Chancellor; or
(ii)".

8A.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 7 (proceedings for committal) for the words "a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate" there shall be substituted the words "the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate or a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate designated as mentioned in section 6(1)(a) above".

(2) For the words in subsection (5) of that section'.

No. 265, in line 33, leave out from second 'court' to 'unless' in line 35.

No. 266, in line 41, at end insert—


'(5A) If the court commits a person under subsection (5) above, it shall issue a certificate of the offence against the law of the United Kingdom which would be constituted by his conduct.'.

No. 267, in page 110, line 11, at end insert—
'(1A) If the country seeking his return immediately informs the court of committal that it intends to make such an application, the court shall make an order providing for his detention, or directing that he shall not be released except on bail.
(1B) Rules of Court may specify—
(a) a period within which a country must make such an application unless the Court grants a longer period; and
(b) a period within which the Court of committal must comply with such an application.'.

No. 268, in line 12, leave out
'refuses to state a case'
and insert
'of committal fails to comply with an application under subsection (1) above within the period specified in Rules of Court'.

No. 269, in line 26, at end insert—
'(4A) An order made by a metropolitan magistrate under subsection (1A) above shall cease to have effect if—
(a) the court dismisses the appeal in respect of the offence or all the offences to which it relates; and
(b) the country seeking return does not immediately—
(i) apply for leave to appeal to the House of Lords; or
(ii) inform the court that it intends to apply for leave.
(4B) An order made by the sheriff of Lothian and Borders under subsection (1A) above shall cease to have effect if the court dismisses the appeal in respect of the offence or all of the offences to which it relates.'.

No. 270, leave out lines 27 to 32.

No. 271, in line 37, at end insert—
'(6A) The House of Lords may exercise any powers of the High Court under subsection (3) above and subsection (4) above shall apply to them as it applies to that Court.
(6B) Subject to subsections (4A) and (4B) above, an order under subsection (IA) above shall have effect so long as the case is pending.
(6C) For the purposes of this section a case is pending (unless proceedings are discontinued) until (disregarding any power of a court to grant leave to take any step out of time) there is no step that the Commonwealth country can take.'.

No. 277, in line 38, leave out from beginning to 'but' in line 39 and insert—
'(7) In the application to Scotland of this section, subsections (6) and (6A) shall be omitted, and,'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Schedule 3

QUESTIONS AS TO SENTENCING—SUPPLEMENTARY

Amendments made: No. 84, in page 112, line 36, leave out paragraph 1.

No. 85, in page 114, line 2, leave out sub-paragraph (a). — [Mr. John Patten.]

Schedule 5

DRUG TRAFFICKING AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 103A, in page 118, line 21, at end insert—
'11A. In section 19 (Compensation)—
(a) in paragraph (b)(i) of subsection (1), the words "(and no conviction for any drug trafficking offence is substituted)" shall cease to have effect;
(b) at the end of that subsection there shall be added the words "if, having regard to all the circumstances, it considers it appropriate to make such an order";

(c) in subsection (2)—
(i) the words "and that, but for that default, the proceedings would not have been instituted or continued,"; and
(ii) in paragraph (b), the word "substantial", shall cease to have effect; and
(d) the following subsection shall be inserted after that subsection—
(2A) The Court shall not order compensation to be paid in any case where it appears to the Court that the proceedings would have been instituted or continued even if the serious default had not occurred.".'.

No. 240, in line 21, at end insert—
'11A. The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (5) of section 24 (assisting another to retain the benefit of drug trafficking)—
(5A) In this section 'constable' includes a police officer engaged on central service (as defined in section 43(5) of the Police Act 1964).".'.

No. 104, in line 54, leave out
'and which are retained there shall nevertheless'
and insert 'shall'.

No. 105, in page 119, line 12, at end insert—
'(3A) The power to make an Order in Council under this section includes power to modify this Act in such a way as to confer power on a person to exercise a discretion.'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Schedule 6

THE CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD

Amendments made: No. 123, in page 120, line 36, leave out from 'Scotland' to end of line 37 and insert
'a Solicitor practising in England and Wales or Scotland or a person who holds or has held judicial office in England and Wales or Scotland.'

No. 124, in page 121, line 12, after 'practices' insert 'or has practised'.

No. 125, in line 13, after 'Wales' insert
'or who holds or has held judicial office there'.

No. 126, in line 14, after 'practises' insert 'or has practised'.

No. 127, in line 15, after 'Scotland' and insert
'or who holds or has held judicial office there'.

No. 128, in line 44, leave out paragraph 8.

No. 129, in page 122, line 34, after 'financial' insert 'and'— [Mr. John Patten.]

Schedule 7

COMPENSATION

Amendments made: No. 130, in page 122, line 44, leave out paragraphs 2 and 3 and insert—
'2. Unless the circumstances appear to them to be exceptional—
(a) in a case where the Board have not previously awarded compensation in respect of an injury they shall not determine a claim in respect of it which is made after the end of three years from the date of the incident giving rise to the injury; and
(b) in a case where they have previously awarded compensation in respect of an injury, they shall not determine any further claim in respect of it which is made after the end of three years beginning with the date of the notice under paragraph 5B(2) below relating to the award, or latest award, of compensation in respect of the injury.'

No. 131, in page 123, line 5, leave out 'the' and insert 'an'.

No. 132, in line 9, leave out 'the claim is' and insert 'a claim is made'.

No. 133, in line 10, leave out 'it may be entertained' and insert


'the Board shall determine the claim'.

No. 134, in line 11, leave out from beginning to 'Where' in line 13 and insert—

'Procedure

5.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make rules of procedure in relation to claims for compensation.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (1) above rules under this paragraph may in particular—
(a) specify matters which may be dealt with or which must be dealt with—
(i) by members of the Board's staff; or
(ii) by a member or members of the Board;
(b) make provision—
(i) for the determination of a claim without a hearing;
(ii) for the reconsideration without a hearing of a previous determination without a hearing; and
(iii) for the extent to which a previous determination may be altered on such a reconsideration:
(c) make provision as to circumstances in which a claim is to be or may be determined by a decision at a hearing on specified issues and as to the procedure for settling the issues which are to be considered;
(d) make provision about the conduct of hearings and in particular about the calling of witnesses, the admissibility of, and weight to be given to, hearsay and opinion evidence and the order of proceedings;
(e) make provision as to the confidentiality of information disclosed in connection with a claim; and
(f) make such incidental or supplementary provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.

(3) Rules under this paragraph may make different provision for different descriptions of cases.

(4) Rules under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument.

(5) A statutory instrument containing any such rules shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Applications for Reconsideration of Claims

5A.—(1)'

No. 135, in line 29, after 'determined', insert 'without a hearing'.

No. 136, in line 33, after 'determined', insert 'without a hearing'.

No. 137, in line 35, at end insert—

'Payment of compensation

5B.—(1) Except in prescribed cases, compensation, whether on an interim or a final award, shall be paid in a lump sum.

(2) It shall be the duty of the board to give a claimant written notice of the amount of an award.

(3) A claimant shall not be entitled to a payment unless the board have received from him written notice to the effect that he has received a notice under sub-paragraph (2) above and accepts the amount of compensation specified in the notice as the proper amount.'.

No. 283, in line 47, leave out '1977' and insert '1988'.

No. 138, in page 124, line 5, leave out paragraph 7 and insert—
'7. Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, a claim for compensation under any of the heads specified in section 109 above is to be determined, and the amount of any compensation which falls to be assessed under any of those heads is to be assessed, in accordance with the rules of the law of England and Wales or the law of Scotland (including rules contained in Acts of Parliament but not including rules allowing a plaintiff or pursuer aggravated damages or interest) in accordance with which a claim in tort or delict arising out of the same facts for damages under a corresponding head would fall to be determined.'.

No. 139, in line 7, leave out from beginning to 'no' in line 28 and insert—

'Private medical treatment

8. In assessing compensation'.

No. 140, in line 34, leave out from beginning to end of page 125, line 25.

No. 284, in page 125, line 42, leave out
'compensation for rape under paragraph 9 above or'.

No. 285, in page 126, line 5, leave out '1977' and insert '1988'.

No. 268, in line 34, leave out
'compensation for rape under paragraph 9 above or'.

No. 141, in page 127, leave out lines 25 to 40.

No. 142, leave out lines 41 to 45 and insert—

'Miscellaneous rules

19.—(1) The Secretary of State may by rules—'.

No. 143, in line 46, leave out from 'forms' to end of line 48.

No. 144, in page 128, line 3, leave out paragraphs (c) to (e).

No. 145, in line 17, leave out paragraphs (g) and (h).

No. 146, in line 20, at end insert—
'(ga) specify cases in which compensation is not to be paid as a lump sum and how it is to be paid in any such case;'.

No. 147, in line 24, at end insert
'and
(j) make such incidental or supplementary provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.
(1A) Rules under this paragraph may make different provision for different descriptions of cases.'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Schedule 8

HOUSING ACTION TRUSTS: LAND

Amendments made: No. 150, in page 128, line 33, leave out from beginning to 'for' in line 37 and insert—
'1. In any enactment for a reference to a detention centre or to a youth custody centre or to both there shall be substituted a reference to a young offender institution. 
1A. In any enactment except—
(a) section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968;
(b) Schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974;
(c) section 5 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974; and
(d) section 17(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982,'.

No. 151, in line 40, leave out paragraphs 2 and 3.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Schedule 10

REGISTRATION OF TITLE AND RELATED MATTERS

Amendments made: No. 152, in page 133, line 37, leave out
'but without prejudice to section 12B(1) below,'.

No. 153, in line 53, at end insert—
'(3A) Any power to include a requirement in a supervision order which is exercisable in relation to a person by virtue of this section or the following provisions of this Act may be exercised in relation to him whether or not any other such power is exercised.'.

No. 154, in page 135, line 29, leave out
'but without prejudice to section 12B(1) of this Act'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 155, in page 135, line 36, at end insert—
'(1a) The Court shall not include such a requirement in a supervision order unless it has consulted the local education authority with regard to its proposal to include the requirement and is satisfied that in the view of the local education authority arrangements exist for the child or young person to whom the supervision order will relate to receive efficient full-time education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational need he may have.'


This amendment arises from an undertaking that was given by my hon. Friend in Committee. The Bill restores magistrates' power to include in a supervision order imposed on a juvenile offender a requirement to attend school regularly. The amendment requires the court, before exercising the power to consult the local education authority, to be satisfied that, in the authority's view, suitable arrangements exist for the child's education.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I congratulate the Minister on conceding the arguments put forward by myself and my hon. Friends in Committee on the Government's proposal to make school attendance part of a supervision order. As the Minister rightly said, the Government have conceded that, before that is done, the court should consult the local education authority about the order. They also conceded that the court should be satisfied that arrangements exist for an efficient full-time education suitable to the supervised person's
age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational need he may have.
Having won that small victory, we now ask that the Government also concede that, before a young person is put under such an order, it is reasonable that evidence of truancy be produced. It is surely not unreasonable that a written record of school attendance be supplied to the court. Does the Minister agree that if the offence took place when the supervised person should have been at school, a written record should be required before the supervision order is made, as there are many reasons for truancy? In fact, in Committee the Minister said that the relationship between poor school attendance and offending among young juveniles was not straightforward. Therefore, would it not be more appropriate for powers to be taken under the Education Act 1944 to enforce school attendance requirements when the truancy is not related to the offence? Would it not be advisable for an expert report to be given to the court stating that the measures that the supervised person was required to comply with were appropriate?
As the Minister conceded in Committee that juveniles were not straightforward and that the wrong supervision order could exacerbate rather than ease the position, I hope that he will accept the amendment and again concede that my hon. Friends are correct.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Lady knows that I always like to meet her suggestions, which I have done on many occasions—but, sadly, not on this occasion. She is seeking to confine the effect of the amendment and, indeed, the clause to those cases where the relevant offence was committed during school time. I cannot accept that there is any justification for such a restrictive approach and I cannot commend it to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 12

ASSESSORS OF COMPENSATION FOR MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE

Amendments made: No. 156, in page 140, line 18, after 'practises' insert 'or has practised'.

No. 157, in line 19, after after 'Ireland' insert
'or who holds or has held judicial office in any of those parts of the United Kingdom'.

No. 158, in line 21, after 'practises' insert 'or has practised'.

No. 159, in line 22, after 'Scotland' insert
'or who holds or has held judicial office there'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Schedule 13

EVIDENCE BEFORE COURTS-MARTIAL ETC.

Amendments made: No. 251, in page 142, line 9. at end insert
'in any case where the court gives leave for, or requires, evidence or a glossary to be so furnished'.

No. 252, in line 42, leave out sub-paragraph (6). — [Mr. John Patten.]

Schedule 14

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 234, in page 143, line 26, at end insert—
'This paragraph shall cease to have effect on the day appointed under section 3(2) of the Land Registration Act 1988 for the coming into force of that Act.'.

Manuscript amendment No. 235, in page 143, line 33, at end insert—

'Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 (c. 36.)

9A. The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (iA) of the proviso to subsection (2) of section 2 of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 (procedures for indictment of offenders)—
(iA) in a case which paragraph (aa) above applies, the bill of indictment may include, either in substitution for or in addition to any count charging an offence specified in the notice of transfer, any counts founded on material that accompanied the copy of that notice which, in pursuance of regulations under section 5(9) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987, was given to the person charged, being counts which may lawfully be joined in the same indictment;".'

No. 16, in page 144, line 23, at end insert—
'13A. In paragraphs 1(a) and 2(a) of the Schedule, after the word 'rape,' there shall be inserted the word torture'.'

No. 181, in line 27, leave out from '5" to "local' and insert "1" to "central'.

No. 244, in page 146, line 29, leave out paragraphs 27 and insert—
'27. The following shall be substituted for the words in section 31 from the beginning of subsection (1) to "powers" in subsection (2)— 
(1) There may be exercised by a single judge in the same manner as by the Court of Appeal and subject to the same provisions—
(a) the powers of the Court of Appeal under this Part of this Act specified in subsection (2) below;
(b) the power to give directions under section 4(4) of the Sexual Offences (Amendments) Act 1976; and
(c) the powers to make orders for the payment of costs under sections 16 to 18 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 in proceedings under this Part of this Act.

(2) The powers mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above".'. No. 274, in line 33, at end insert—
'27A. The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2A) of that section— 
(2B) The power of the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal under section [Crown Court proceedings—orders restricting or preventing reports or restricting public access] of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 may be exercised by a single judge in the same manner as it may be exercised by the Court.".'.

No. 245, in line 34, leave out paragraph 28 and insert—
'28. The following shall be substituted in the first subsection of section 44 for the words from the beginning to "judge", in the first place where it occurs—
(1) There may be exercised by a single judge—


(a) the powers of the Court of Appeal under this Part of this Act—
(i) to extend the time for making an application for leave to appeal;
(ii) to make an order for or in relation to bail; and
(iii) to give leave for a person to be present at the hearing of any proceedings preliminary or incidental to an appeal; and
(b) their powers to make orders for the payment of costs under sections 16 and 17 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 in proceedings under this Part of this Act.".'.

No. 185, in page 147, leave out line 44.

No. 241, in line 47, leave out 'shall also' and insert 'also to'.

No. 236, in page 148, line 13, at end insert—

'Legal Aid Act 1974 (c. 4)

39A. In section 28(7A) of the Legal Aid Act 1974 for the words "the person charged" there shall be substituted "a person to whom the notice relates".'.

No. 42, in page 149, line 18, at end insert—

'Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 (c.17)

49A. The following sections shall be substituted for section 3 of the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978—

Extradition under 1870 Act.

3.—(1) An offence under section 1(3)(a) of this Act shall be deemed to be included in the list of extradition crimes in Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1870.

(2) For the purposes of that Act any act, wherever committed, which is any of the following offences—
(a) an offence mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 1 of this Act which is committed against a protected person within the meaning of that section;
(b) an offence mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection which is committed in connection with such an attack as is so mentioned;
(c) an attempt to commit an offence mentioned in the preceding paragraphs; or
(d) an offence under section 1(3) of this Act,
and an offence against the law of any State in the case of which the Extradition Act 1870 is applied by an Order in Council under section 2 of that Act shall be deemed to be an offence committed within the jurisdiction of that State.

Extradition under Part I of Criminal Justice Act 1988

3A.—(1) Where—
(a) no such arrangement as is mentioned in section 2 of the Extradition Act 1870 has been made with a State which is a party to the Convention mentioned in the title to this Act; and
(b) general extradition arrangements have not been made with that State under Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
Her Majesty may by Order in council direct that the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 specified in subsection (2) below shall apply as between the United Kingdom and that State, subject to the limitations, restrictions, exceptions and qualifications, if any, contained in the Order, as if the Convention constituted general extradition arrangements made with that State under Part I of that Act, but only in respect of the following offences—
(i) an offence mentioned in section 3(2)(a) of (b) above;
(ii) an attempt to commit such an offence;
(iii) counselling, procuring, commanding, aiding or abetting such an offence;
(iv) being accessory before or after the fact to such an offence; and
(v) an offence under section 1(3) of this Act.

(2) The provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 mentioned in subsection (1) above are—
(a) section 1(1) to (8);
(b) sections 3 to 10; and
(c) sections 12 to 18.

(3) An Order in Council under this section may not provide that a court determining whether a person arrested for an offence mentioned in subsection (1) above shall not be

under a duty to determine whether the evidence would be sufficient to warrant his trial if the offence had taken place within the jurisdiction of the court.

(4) For the purposes of the provisions of that Act specified in subsection (2) above, in their application by virtue of an Order in Council under this section as between the United Kingdom and any other State, any act or omission, wherever it takes place, which is
(a) an offence mentioned in subsection (1) above; and
(b) an offence against the law of that State,
shall be deemed to be an offence committed within the territory of that State."

49B. The following subsections shall be substituted for section 4(1) of that Act—
(1) Sections 17 and 22 of the Extradition Act 1870 shall extend to section 3 above. 
(1A) Sections 19, (Application of general extradition arrangements to colonies) and (Special extradition arrangements—colonies) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall extend to section 3A above.".'.

No. 243, in page 152, line 25, at end insert—
'71A. The following subsection shall be inserted after section 45(3)— 
(3A) The power of the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal under section [Crown Court proceedings—orders restricting or preventing reports or restricting public access] of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 may be exercised by a single judge in the same manner as it may be exercised by the Court.".'.

No. 43, in line 35, at end insert—

'CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1982 (c. 16)

73A. The following sections shall be inserted after section 93 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982—

Extradition under Part I of Criminal Justice Act 1988

93A.—(1) Where—
(a) no such arrangement as is mentioned in section 2 of the Extradition Act 1870 has been made with a Convention country; and
(b) general extradition arrangements have not been made with that country under Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 specified in subsection (2) below shall apply as between the United Kingdom and that country, subject to the limitations, restrictions, exceptions and qualifications, if any, contained in the Order, as if the Convention constituted general extradition arrangements made with that country under Part I of that Act, but only in respect of the following offences—
(i) an offence committed on board an aircraft inflight registered in that country;
(ii) an attempt to commit such an offence;
(iii) counselling, procuring, commanding, aiding or abetting such an offence; and
(iv) being accessory before or after the fact to such an offence.

(2) The provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 mentioned in subsection (1) above are—
(a) section 1(1) to (8);
(b) sections 3 to 10; and
(c) sections 12 to 18.

(3) An Order in Council under this section may not provide that a court determining whether a person arrested for an offence mentioned in subsection (1) above shall not be under a duty to determine whether the evidence would be sufficient to warrant his trial if the offence had taken place within the jurisdiction of the court.

(4) Subsections (4) and (5) of section 92 above shall apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section.

93B.—(1) Sections 17 and 22 of the Extradition Act 1870 shall extend to section 93 above.
(2) Sections 19. (Application of general extradition arrangements to Colonies) and (Special extradition arrangements—Colonies) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall extend to section 93A above and to section 92(4) and (5) above as they apply for the purposes of section 93A above.".'.

No. 44, in line 42, at end insert—

'TAKING OF HOSTAGES ACT I982 (C.28)

74A, The following section shall be inserted after section 3 of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982—

Extradition under Part I of Criminal Justice Act 1988

3A.—(1) Where—
(a) No such arrangements as is mentioned in section 2 of the Extradition Act 1870 has been made with a State which is a party to the Convention; and
(b) general extradition arrangements have not been made with that State under Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 specified in subsection (2) below shall apply as between the United Kingdom and that State, subject to the limitations, restrictions, exceptions and qualifications, if any, contained in the Order, as if the Convention constituted general extradition arrangements made with that State under Part I of that Act, but only in respect of the following offences—
(i) an offence under this Act;
(ii) an attempt to commit such an offence;
(iii) counselling, procuring, commanding, aiding or abetting such an offence; and
(iv) being accessory before or after the fact to such an offence.

(2) The provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 mentioned in subsection (1) above are—
(a) section 1(1) to (8);
(b) sections 3 to 10; and
(c) sections 12 to 18.

(3) An Order in council under this section may not provide that a court determining whether a person arrested for an offence mentioned in subsection (1) above shall not he under a duty to determine whether the evidence would be sufficient to warrant his trial if the offence had taken place within the jurisdiction of the court.

(4) For the purposes of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 specified in subsection (2) above, in their application by virtue of an Order in Council under this section as between the United Kingdom and any other State, any act or omission, wherever it takes place, which is—
(a) an offence mentioned in subsection (a) above; and
(b) an offence against the law of that State,
shall be deemed to be an offence committed within the territory of that State.

(5) In this section 'the Convention' means the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages opened for signature at New York on 18 December 1979."

74B. The following subsections shall be substituted for section 5(1) of that Act—
(1) Sections 17 and 22 of the Extradition Act 1870 shall extend to section 3(1) and (4) above.
(1A) Sections 19 (Application of general extradition arrangements to Colonies) and (Special extradition arrangements—Colonies) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall extend to section 3A above.

Aviation Security Act 1982 (c.36)

74C. The Aviation Security Act 1982 shall be amended as follows.

75D. In subsection (3) of section 9, after the word "above" there shall he inserted the words "and of section 9A below".

74E. The following section shall be inserted after that section—

Extradition under Part I of Criminal Justice Act 1968.

9A.—(1) Where—
(a) no such arrangement as is mentioned in section 2 of the Extradition Act 1870 has been made with a State which is a party to a relevant Convention; and
(b) general extradition arrangements have not been made with that State under Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1988,
Her majesty may by Order in council direct that the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 specified in subsection (2) below shall apply as between the United Kingdom and that State, subject to the limitations, restrictions, exceptions and qualifications, if any, contained in the Order, as if the relevant Convention

constituted general extradition arrangements made with that State under Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but only in respect of the following offences—
(i) offences which are offences in pursuance of that Convention;
(ii) an attempt to commit such an offence;
(iii) counselling, procuring, commanding, aiding or abetting such an offence; and
(iv) being accessory before or after the fact to such an offence.

(2) The provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 mentioned in subsection (1) above are—
(a) section 1(1) to (8);
(b) sections 3 to 10; and
(c) sections 12 to 18.

(3) An Order in Council under this section may not provide that a court dealing with a person arrested for an offence mentioned in subsection (1) above shall not be under a duty to determine whether the evidence would be sufficient to warrant his trial if the offence had taken place within the jurisdiction of the court.

(4) For the purposes of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 specified in subsection (2) above, in their application by virtue of an Order in council under this section as between the United Kingdom and any other State any Act or omission, wherever it takes place, which falls within section 9(4) of this Act shall be deemed to be an offence committed within the territory of that State.".

74F. The following subsections shall be substituted for section 39(1) of that Act—
(1) Sections 17 and 22 of the Extradition Act 1870 shall extend to section 9 above.
(1A) Sections 19 (Application of general extradition arrangements to Colonies) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall extend to section 9A above and to section 9 above as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1988.".'

No. 17, in page 153, line 5, at end insert—
'76A. At the end of part II of Schedule 1 to that Act there shall be added—

Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. )

26. Section [Torture] (torture)."'.

No. 45, in line 23, at end insert—

'NUCLEAR MATERIAL (OFFENCES) ACT I983 (C. I8)

79.—(1)
the following section shall be inserted after section 5 of the Nuclear Material (Offences) Act 1983 (extradition)—

Extradition under Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

5A.—(1) Where—
(a) no such arrangement as is mentioned in section 2 of the Extradition Act 1870 has been made with a State which is a party to the Convention; and
(b) general extradition arrangements have not been made with that State under Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1988,
Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 specified in subsection (2) below shall apply as between the United Kingdom and that State, subject to the limitations, restrictions, exceptions and qualifications, if any, contained in the Order, as if the Convention constituted general extradition arrangements made with that State under Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but only in respect of the following offences—
(i) an offence mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) of subsection (1) of section 1 of this Act which is committed by doing an act in relation to or by means of nuclear material;
(ii) an offence under section 2 of this Act;
(iii) an attempt to commit an offence mentioned in paragraph (i) or (ii) above;
(iv) counselling, procuring, commanding, aiding or abetting such an offence; and
(v) being accessory before or after the fact to such an offence.

(2) The provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1986 mentioned in subsection (1) above are—
(a) section 1(1) to (8);
(b) sections 3 to 10; and


(c) sections 12 to 18.

(3) An Order in council under this section may not provide that a court determining whether a person arrested for an offence mentioned in subsection (1) above shall not be under a duty to determine whether the evidence would be sufficient to warrant his trial if the offence had taken place within the jurisdiction of the court.

(4) For the purposes of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 specified in subsection (2) above, in their application by virtue of an Order in council under this section as between the United Kingdom and any other State, any act wherever committed, which is—
(a) an offence mentioned in subsection (1) above; and
(b) an offence against the law of that State,
shall be deemed to be an offence committed within the territory of that State.

(5) In this section and in section 6 below "the Convention" means the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material opened the signature at Vienna and New York on 3 March 1980.".

79B. The following subsections shall be substituted for section 7(1) of that Act—
(1) Sections 17 and 22 of the Extradition Act 1870 shall extend to section 5 above.
(1A) Sections 19 (Application of general extradition arrangements to Colonies) and (Special Extradition arrangements—Colonies) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall extend to section 5A above.".'

No. 177, in line 25, leave out from beginning to '(intimate' and insert—
'79A. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 shall be amended as follows.
79B. At the end of subsection (3)(b) of section 24 (arrest) there shall be added the words "other than an offence under section 12(1) of the Theft Act 1968".
79C. In section 55(1)'.

No. 212, in line 27, at end insert—
'80A. In section 65, in the definition of "intimate samples", for the word "orifice" there shall be substituted the word "orifices".'

No. 178, in line 28, leave out 'of that Act'.

No. 18, in line 29, at end insert—
'81A. At the end of Schedule 5 to that Act there shall be added—

Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c.)

9. Section [Torture] (Torture)."'.

No. 273, in page 155, line 3, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
'(3) the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (2)—
(2) An order that subsection (1) above shall not apply to reports—
(a) of an application under section 6(1) above;
(b) of a preparatory hearing;
(c) of an appeal to the Court of Appeal under section 9(11) above; or
(d) of an application for leave to appeal under that subsection may be made—
(i) in a case falling within paragraph (a), (b) or (d) above, by the judge dealing with the matter; and
(ii) in a case falling within paragraph (c) above, by the Court of Appeal.".'.

No. 237, in line 9, leave out from beginning to first 'the' in line 13.

No. 272, in line 15, at end insert—
'93A. In section 13(1), for the words "operates only so as to make for Northern Ireland provision corresponding to" there shall be substituted the words "is made only for purposes corresponding to those of".'.

No. 64, in line 18, leave out 'In subsection (5) of'.

No. 65, in page 155, line 19, leave out '(restriciton on use of a statement required under that section)' and insert '(Powers of investigation in relation to serious or complex fraud) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) for the words from "attend" to the end there shall be substituted the words "answer questions or

otherwise furnish information with respect to any matter relevant to the investigation at a specified place and either at a specified time or forthwith.".

(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) for the words "a specified time and place" there shall be substituted the words "such place as may be specified in the notice and either forthwith or at such time as may be so specified,"; and
(b) for the word "class" there shall be substituted the word "description".

(4) In subsection (5)'. — [Mr. John Patten.]

Schedule 15

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 157, line 28, at end insert—


'1969 c.12.
Genocide Act 1969.
Section 2(1)(b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it.




In section 3(1), the words "and sections 16 and 17 of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967".'.

No. 47, in line 34, column 3, at end insert—




'In section 60, subsection (1)(b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it, and in subsection (2), the words "or section16(2) or 17 of the said Act of 1967".'.

No. 186, in line 34, column 3, at end insert—




'Section 34(1)(f).'

No. 179, in line 38, at end insert—


'1972 c.20.
Road Traffic Act 1972.
In section 100, the words "or attempting to drive".'.

No. 182, in line 42, at end insert—


'1973 c.14.
Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1973.
In Schedule 1, paragraph 3.'

No. 184, in plage 158, line 15, column 3, at end insert—




'In section 5(6), the words from the beginning to "and", in the second place where it occurs.'

No. 48, in line 38, at end insert—


'1978 c.26.
Suppression Terrorism Act 1978.
of Section 3(2)


1978 c.31.
Theft Act 1978.
In section 5(3) the words from "and" to the end.'.

No. 49, in line 39, column 3, at beginning insert—






'In section 1(6), paragraph (b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it and the words "and sections 16 and 17 of the 1967 Act".'.

No. 50, in page 159, line 3, at end insert—


'1982 c. 16
Civil Aviation Act 1982.
Section 93(3).


1982 c. 28.
Taking of Hostages Act 1982.
In section 3, subsection(1)(b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it and subsections (3) and (5).


1982 c. 36.
Aviation Security Act 1982.
In section 9, subsection(1)(b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it, and subsections (2) and (3).'.

No. 51, in line 18, at end insert—


'1983 c. 18.
Nuclear Material (Offences) Act 1983.
In section 5, subsection(1)(b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it, and subsections (2) and (4).'.

No. 52, in line 31, at end insert—


'1985 c. 37.
Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985.
Section 3(1)(b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it.'.

No. 91, in line 38, after 'it', insert
'in subsection (3), the words "or 9".'.

No. 106A, line 43, column 3, at end insert—




'In section 19, in subsection (1) (b) (i), the words "(and no conviction for any drug trafficking offence is substituted)" and in subsection (2), in paragraph (a), the words "and that, but for that default, the proceedings would not have been instituted or continued," and in paragraph (b), the word "substantial".'.

No. 238, in page 160, line 24, column 3, at end insert—




'In Schedule 2, paragraph 1(2).'.

No. 187, in line 27, at end insert—


'1988 c.
 Coroners Act 1988.
In Schedule 3, paragraph 14.'

No. 180, in line 30, at end insert—
'1A. The repeal in the Road Traffic Act 1972 does not extend to Scotland.'— [Mr. John Patten.]

Title

Amendments made: No. 11, in line 11, after 'indictment' insert
'orders restricting the access of the public to the whole or any part of a trial on indictment or to any proceedings ancillary

to such a trial and orders restricting the publication of any report of the whole or any part of a trial on indictment or any such ancillary proceedings.'.

No. 19, in line 17, at end insert
'torture and an offence of'.

No. 70, in line 23, after 'detention', insert
'to make provision in relation to the taking of body samples by the police in Northern Ireland'.— [Mr. John Patten]

Order for Third Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I have no intention of interrupting the breakneck speed of this legislative process, which I hope will be widely imitated in future. I wish to clarify one point that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) mentioned earlier. She said that an article in the New Scientist suggested that mouth swabs would not yield material suitable for DNA profiling. I am advised that mouth swabs can produce useful evidence. We do not accept the contention in the article that another test should be used in conjunction with it. I understand that the ICI cellmark diagnostics people say that the article does not accurately represent their views and that they accept that DNA profiles can be obtained from mouth swabs, provided that sufficient cells are available in the sample.
It has been a long journey for the Bill. I spent more time with it on the first leg of its journey during the last Parliament than I have on this part. It is therefore easier for me to say that we owe a debt of gratitude to the Standing Committee. That is partly the result of the way in which the Opposition handled the measure, and I pay tribute to the skill with which the hon. Member for Dewsbury grasped and ran with the subject.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their contributions and support. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State bore most of the burden in Committee and I congratulate him on the way that he did so —not least because he surmounted a hurdle that I did not always manage to surmount. Whenever I appeared in Committee—or, indeed, in the Committee on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill—the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) greeted me with a glare because I was not a lawyer and I was contributing to discussions that he thought should take place within a slightly closed circle. Clearly, my hon. Friend managed to overcome that obstacle and showed that one does not have to be a lawyer to legislate on these matters. I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has given much help during the Report stage, and who admirably restrained his natural belligerence on such occasions.
When the Bill first appeared, it was criticised as something of a ragbag, but that criticism has died away. On important subject after important subject—extradition, peremptory challenge, lenient sentences, video links, criminal injuries compensation, to give but a sample —the Bill represents the satisfactory end to a long argument both inside and outside the House. As the Bill has progressed, we have inserted provisions of substantial value, such as that on knives.
The other day, one of the wisest of my predecessors advised me that, whatever we did, we should not have another Criminal Justice Bill, because so many people thought it necessary or desirable to include matters that were not originally intended. I have no intention of peering


into the future. I just believe that the House can, with confidence, give a Third Reading to a thoroughly sensible and effective piece of legislation.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for clarifying the point that we raised earlier about DNA profiling. I hope that the information that he has given will prove accurate in practice.
I do not wish to follow the Home Secretary completely down the road of mutual congratulation, but I agree that the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill has been something of an epic—more so for some people than others. I must extend my sympathy to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) who has acted as Whip on this Bill twice round. To have spent one year on the Bill is punishment enough, but to have spent two years on it—my hon. Friend has spent nearly all of her time in the House on it—is a feat in itself.
The House has spent a considerable amount of time discussing this Bill and, even on Report, we have had more than 200 Government amendments. The Home Secretary has denied that the Bill is still a ragbag, but I would call it a hotch-potch of measures. It is a mark of our discussions that a bad Bill will always remain so, no matter how much debate takes place.
On Second Reading, we ought to be positive; we welcomed those parts of the Bill that we considered constructive—the reduction in the length of prison sentences for unpaid fines, limiting custodial sentences in police cells, encouraging the use of bail hostels, creating a, single detention centre for young offenders and giving the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board a statutory basis. Unfortunately, after many hours in Committee and on Report, we have little to add to that list.
Fortunately, at times, the Government displayed an unusual characteristic by listening to some of the debates and accepting some of our amendments. We welcome that, and pay tribute to Ministers for doing so. The Government accepted our proposal to ratify the United Nations convention on torture. We welcome the Minister's acceptance of our amendment this evening to lessen the worst effects of the Nottingham justices' decision. We were pleased that the Minister accepted Opposition arguments that it was inappropriate to make custody the sanction for a young person's failure to undergo psychiatric treatment. We are also pleased that education authorities should be consulted before school attendance becomes the requirement of a supervision order.
Such concessions do not amount to much in a Bill that has been universally criticised as an attack on civil liberties and for its failure to deal with the problems of our criminal justice system. Serious disquiet has been expressed in this House and in another place about the removal of the prima facie rule in extradition, which forms a large part of the Bill. Likewise, the Bill retains the removal of the right to peremptory challenge. Jury trials will be removed from some driving and criminal damage cases. The Bill advocates the increased use of documentary evidence as opposed to oral evidence, and extends the time between bail hearings from eight to 28 days—we believe that that may become the norm in future.
The Government have moved in the right direction in their attempts to provide more for the victims of crime. but even in that they have failed. The Government are putting the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on a statutory footing but they are also setting off on a petty, penny-pinching exercise that will deny compensation for small items such as damaged clothing and deprive victims of crime of their supplementary benefit when they are awarded compensation. By those examples, which represent major parts of the Bill, the Government have shown their disregard for public and expert opinion.
The Government have ignored the views of the people who know best and who are directly affected by the changes. The Law Society, the Association of Chief Probation Officers, the National Association of Probation Officers, the Police Federation, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and the National Council for Civil Liberties, to name but a few, have all opposed major parts to the Bill. In the face of such opposition, the Government have not moved an iota on the measures.
Despite this major piece of legislation, our criminal justice system is likely to remain in crisis. The Government have done nothing to get to the source of the problems that we face. The Opposition maintain that a successful criminal justice system must begin with the premise that it seeks to provide equal rights under the law and equal access to it. At present, all that many people experience is alienation from a system that treats them inappropriately and often unfairly.
In other measures that they are introducing, the Government are now seeking to offload their responsibility for the incidence of crime by telling us that we must take more care to lock up our property and take better control of our children. Of course we must do those things, but the Government cannot escape the fact that the environment that they have created has also created a divided community in which crime breeds. The Criminal Justice Bill is a mish-mash of measures. The Government want to be seen to be doing something to respond to a public who are increasingly worried by the failure of our criminal justice system to deal with rising crime rates.
We are left with the immutable fact that the Bill will not deal with the main problems. Crime will continue to increase; prisons will continue to be overcrowded. The prison, probation and police services will find it increasingly difficult to do their jobs. Worst of all, the number of victims will continue to increase. Those are the issues the Government should be tackling, rather than eroding our civil liberties. That is why we shall vote against the Bill tonight.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his ministerial team on a Bill which, although it cannot tackle all the problems listed by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), goes a long way to tackling some of them well.
I have had the doubtful privilege of being involved in the Committee stages of the Criminal Justice Bill, and of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, in both Parliaments —and my right hon. Friend played a distinguished part. I also served on the Committees which considered the Drug


Trafficking Offences Bill, the Public Order Bill and the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, but not, I am thankful to say, on the Committee examining this Bill.
The sheer volume and complexity of the legislation that my right hon. Friend has taken through the House constitutes a distinguished record. I heard what he said about the wise advice of a predecessor who suggested that, whatever else my right hon. Friend did, he should not introduce another Criminal Justice Bill; and I make a prediction. If my right hon. Friend remains, as I hope he will, in his office for another year or so, he or his successor will be almost bound to introduce yet another Criminal Justice Bill. Some things remain to be tackled, notably in the areas of the right to silence and of the video recordings that Mr. Justice Pigot is examining. I and the hon. Member for Dewsbury made common cause on that matter.
Ultimately, we shall get on top of the crime problem not by means of legislation, but by personal responsibility and legislation. When the hon. Member for Dewsbury sought to place all the responsibility for crime and disorder in our midst on the Government, she let down herself and her party.
Finally, most of us are in the fortunate position of being able to walk away from this Bill, although no doubt their Lordships will have to put a few finishing touches to it. The police service will have to carry it out. As I said at the end of the debates on all the Bills I have mentioned, we should have a care for the additional duties that we constantly lay on the police service, and should understand that the more complex the law, the more difficult is the task that the police must undertake on behalf of us all. I wish the Bill well and congratulate my right hon. Friend on it.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Although the Home Secretary believes that I glared at him during the proceedings on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, I assure him that during the Committee stage of this Bill I missed his jousting style, as I missed the fencing style of the former Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), on the Criminal Justice Bill mark I. The present Minister of State has more of a knife-thrower's style, attempting to surround us with knives so that we cannot move outside the ring that he has created. That was enjoyable, too.
The Bill contained some things that were a great disappointment to me, especially—I say this as a practitioner—the incomprehensible reasons that were given for the removal of the right of peremptory challenge. Although a significant concession was made tonight on the procedure by which the courts will deal with challenges for cause, I still believe that there will be practical difficulties in dealing with jury challenges in the future. But I hope that I shall be proved wrong.
The Bill also contains some useful changes relating to video recordings—I would like that provision to go much further—forfeiture, confiscation, indecency and offensive weapons. What it cannot claim to be, although it makes significant improvements to the law, is a strategy. I suspect that we shall hear it spoken of as part of a great master plan of law and order. Although the Minister of State issues more press releases than any Minister ever known to the House, and although the Home Secretary holds more

press conferences per week than any Cabinet Minister ever known to the House, I fear that their master plan has yet to be revealed. This is not it.

Mr. Ashby: Earlier this week, the Home Office told us about the amnesty on knives. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has now told us what has happened to some of those knives—the Minister of State has been surrounding the hon. and learned Gentleman with them.
I was not a member of the Committee that examined the Bill, but I followed the proceedings carefully night after night—sometimes burning the midnight oil later than those who served on the Committee. I thank Ministers and Home Office officials for their great assistance in helping me to follow the Bill.
It would be wrong to say that the Bill is a hotch-potch. It is a portmanteau. A Bill that deals with so many matters cannot always be cohesive. I disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery in one sense: I believe that the Bill will be remembered, because it is the first step in the direction of radically changing the rules of evidence. Lawyers like to think that the rules of evidence are written in stone, have been devised over the centuries and must never be changed. That is not so. It is important that we should not be stuck with these tablets of stone for ever. We should examine our rules on the way in which evidence is given and be prepared to change.
Substantial changes have been made in the Bill. including the fact that the unsworn testimony of a child will no longer require corroboration. The rules on first-hand testimony and documentary evidence have also been changed.
I regret only one part of the Bill—that relating to jury challenges—but I am grateful that the Bill did not abolish juries in fraud trials. Perhaps that is the quid pro quo. As some of my hon. Friends have said, we shall see more challenging for cause. Jury trials will be extended as a result of getting rid of the peremptory challenge. Problems with juries will arise because jurors will not have been challenged, and that is the only aspect of the Bill that I regret. We will regret removing the right to jury challenge and have to introduce a measure to restore it or to formalise challenges for cause.

Mr. Bermingham: Just as Mary had "Calais" engraved on her heart as a sign of shame, so those of us who have served on two Criminal Justice Bills in quick succession fear that we may have those engraved on our hearts also as a sign of shame.
In two years of parliamentary time, a number of grave issues have been bypassed and a number of others have been pushed into law because it was expedient to do so. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) thought jury challenges were bad. Those hon. Members who were not in the previous Parliament will not appreciate the way in which such arguments prompted the Government to remove the peremptory challenge, a step that we shall learn to regret.
I fear that many Conservative Members do not understand many of these issues. [Interruption.] They are chattering like children pecking on the walls of nowhere. For example, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr


Fallon), whose manners in this place are becoming increasingly bad, may live to regret the day when we set up the American system of challenging, which may be the price we pay for this measure.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on mastering the technicalities of the Bill and leading for the Opposition in a way which does credit to the procedures of the House. I also pay credit to the Minister of State who, although not a lawyer, mastered the technicalities. He has often disgreed with me on some issues covered by the Bill. That matters not, for education is a wonderful thing and it comes with time. When we reach the third Criminal Justice Bill in the lifetime of two Parliaments, perhaps we shall be able to convert him, too.
It sometimes happens— [Interruption.]—that hon. Members come into the Chamber late at night full of ale and chatter and do not understand what is going on. That tends to spoil our proceedings, because at the concluding stages of a Bill, when those who served on the Standing Committee are being serious, they should listen to us. We are saying, in effect, "The Bill will be passed, even though we shall vote against its Third Reading; we must look at the realities. We thank the Government for the concessions they have made. They have listened to our arguments, and perhaps next time they will listen harder." On rare occasions when members of the Opposition feel able to be nice to the Government, the least that Conservative Members should do is listen to us.
This Bill now passes into history. It passes over to the practitioners, of whom I am one, and I declare that interest. Those of us who will have to deal with the practicalities of the measure fear that we shall be left with many problems. Many members of the community will have to pay the price for the inaccuracies the Bill contains, for they will lead to appeals, to delays and to suffering. For those and other reasons, I oppose the measure.

Mr. Dickens: When I hear praise from lawyers and then a few squeals, and when I hear praise from those representing the police, and then a few squeals, I think that we may have got it right on behalf of parents in Britain.
No Criminal Justice Bill has done more for parents and children than the one on which we shall be voting in a few minutes. Hon. Members will know that, together with them, I have fought and campaigned for about nine years for many of the things that are now in the Bill.
What a terrible thing the rules of corroboration were for a child—to be encouraged to tell when someone had abused him and yet to find that no one would listen, and when they did, to find that the judge directed the jury that it would be unsafe and improper to convict on his uncorroborated evidence. When the Bill becomes an Act, children in Britain will at last be listened to in a proper way like an adult and be entitled to be believed as an adult.
Then there is the video link which enables a child to give evidence in a comfortable room away from the court, where the child does not have to face the abuser or the accused across the court room, look at the judge and barristers in their wigs, or suffer the drama of the court that makes many of us turn to jelly. [Interruption.] Perhaps not me, but certainly many of those hon.

Members who did not vote for capital punishment would have turned to jelly. Those children can now be listened to in a more sensitive way.
I hope and pray that the inquiry that the Government have promised us to look into the taking of evidence from a child in the early stages of an inquiry will decide in favour of that, because a child forgets many things by the time he gets to court.
How many times have we criticised judges for living in a different world, for not reflecting public opinion, for giving too lenient a sentence? The prosecution can now seek leave to appeal against a too-lenient sentence. It is in the Bill. If I and many other hon. Members had not been right in criticising a few of our judges, our legislators and departmental people would not have included that in the Bill. But it is there, and it will be voted through tonight.
Many hon. Members were not here a few minutes ago, but we were saying that horrible photographs or videos of children mean that a child has to be procured, sometimes snatched from the roadside. It could be the child of an hon. Member one day. Children have to be procured to produce such muck, and when they are, the material is used to corrupt other adults and to entice them to look towards a child in a sexual way.
That will now come to an end, because previously when a man was found with a house full of child pornography, his defence was that it was for his own use, and he was free. Now, if any police officer goes to a house and finds anybody in possession of child pornography, in a briefcase or in the office, he will not be protected by the words, "It is for my own use." It will now be a criminal offence to be in possession of such material for one's own use.
I have waited nine years for this. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary goes to the next Conservative party conference, he will be able to hold his head high because at last he has struck a blow for the parents of Britain and for the victims. I congratulate him, his Ministers and his Department.

Mr. Robert Hayward: I would like to follow on, not from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) but from a comment made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). He said that Third Reading gave an opportunity for members of the Committee to raise certain items, but it also gives those who were not on the Committee an opportunity to raise one or two points. I particularly welcome clause 34 of the Bill, which gives the prosecution the right to appeal against lenient sentences.
In my constituency, on 31 May last year, Mark Couzons was murdered in most tragic and violent circumstances. He was, by the admission of everybody who knew him, quite a lad. Some people thought badly of him; some did not. But nobody would have said that he warranted being murdered in such a way. When the case came to court in December, James Nelder was tried and found guilty of manslaughter, late on a Friday afternoon, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. That was the sentence of the judge.
Up to now, that has been the final stage of the legal process. As a result of this Bill it will be possible for the prosecution to appeal, if it believes that it is appropriate.


There is no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my constituents that that sentence was far too lenient. It was not in the mind of the judge that it was too lenient.
It is appropriate that in cases such as this, the prosecution should have the right to consider an appeal. If there is not, the impact that such a sentence may have on the morale of the police and the community is very substantial indeed. People will have confidence in sentences if they are subject to review in these or similar circumstances. If they are not, there is a danger that the law will be brought progressively into disrepute; people will believe that they have been treated unfairly in comparison with others whom they see as receiving more lenient sentences for more violent crimes.
For that reason, and because of the experience of my constituents, I wholeheartedly endorse this Bill and welcome in particular clause 34.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 105.

Division No. 390]
[11.37 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Day, Stephen


Allason, Rupert
Devlin, Tim


Amess, David
Dickens, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Dicks, Terry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Douglas-Hamillton, Lord James


Ashby, David
Dover, Den


Aspinwall, Jack
Dunn, Bob


Atkins, Robert
Durant, Tony


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Baldry, Tony
Evennett, David


Batiste, Spencer
Fallon, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Favell, Tony


Benyon, W.
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forman, Nigel


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boswell, Tim
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Peter
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Freeman, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
French, Douglas


Bowis, John
Gardiner, George


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gill, Christopher


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Brazier, Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gow, Ian


Browne, John (Winchester)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gregory, Conal


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butcher, John
Grist, Ian


Butler, Chris
Ground, Patrick


Butterfill, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carrington, Matthew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carttiss, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy


Cash, William
Hannam, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Harris, David


Colvin, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Conway, Derek
Hawkins, Christopher


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hayes, Jerry


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hayward, Robert


Couchman, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cran, James
Heddle, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Curry, David
Hind, Kenneth


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)





Holt, Richard
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Portillo, Michael


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Price, Sir David


Hunter, Andrew
Raffan, Keith


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Redwood, John


Irvine, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Janman, Tim
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knowles, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knox, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lang, Ian
Shersby, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Speller, Tony


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lilley, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


McCrindle, Robert
Steen, Anthony


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stevens, Lewis


Maclean, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sumberg, David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Summerson, Hugo


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Madel, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Major, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Malins, Humfrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mans, Keith
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich)


Marlow, Tony
Thorne, Neil


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thurnham, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maude, Hon Francis
Tracey, Richard


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Trippier, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Miller, Sir Hal
Waldegrave, Hon William


Mills, Iain
Walden, George


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waller, Gary


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moate, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Monro, Sir Hector
Watts, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wells, Bowen


Morrison, Sir Charles
Wheeler, John


Moss, Malcolm
Whitney, Ray


Neale, Gerrard
Widdecombe, Ann


Nelson, Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Neubert, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Winterton, Nicholas


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wolfson, Mark


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wood, Timothy


Oppenheim, Phillip
Woodcock, Mike


Page, Richard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Paice, James



Patnick, Irvine
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Pawsey, James





NOES


Allen, Graham
Bell, Stuart


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Armstrong, Hilary
Bermingham, Gerald


Battle, John
Boateng, Paul


Beckett, Margaret
Boyes, Roland






Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Leadbitter, Ted


Caborn, Richard
Leighton, Ron


Callaghan, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clay, Bob
Loyden, Eddie


Clelland, David
McAllion, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McAvoy, Thomas


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Corbyn, Jeremy
McFall, John


Cryer, Bob
McKelvey, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McWilliam, John


Dalyell, Tam
Madden, Max


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dewar, Donald
Meale, Alan


Dixon, Don
Michael, Alun


Doran, Frank
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Eastham, Ken
Morgan, Rhodri


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morley, Elliott


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mullin, Chris


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Murphy, Paul


Foster, Derek
Nellist, Dave


Foulkes, George
O'Neill, Martin


Fyfe, Maria
Pendry, Tom


Galloway, George
Pike, Peter L.


George, Bruce
Prescott, John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Primarolo, Dawn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gordon, Mildred
Randall, Stuart


Graham, Thomas
Rogers, Allan


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Rooker, Jeff


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Grocott, Bruce
Rowlands, Ted


Henderson, Doug
Salmond, Alex


Hinchliffe, David
Skinner, Dennis


Holland, Stuart
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hood, Jimmy
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Steinberg, Gerry





Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Turner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Vaz, Keith
Wray, Jimmy


Wall, Pat



Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wareing, Robert N.
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Mr. Frank Cook.


Winnick, David

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

LIAISON COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Sir Peter Emery be added to the Liaison Committee. — [Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

PETITION

Health and Safety Executive Office, Dundee

Mr. John McAllion: I beg leave of the House to present a petition on behalf of 700 of my constituents and constituents of other hon. Members in Scotland who are opposed to the proposed closure of the Health and Safety Executive office in Dundee. We believe that the closure will be detrimental to the interests of the people of Dundee and people outwith Dundee as well. We ask the House to impose its influence upon the Government and to convince them not to close the office. We would be grateful if the House would take note of the objection, which I present on behalf of the people of Dundee.

To lie upon the Table.

British Prisoners of War (Wormhoudt)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. John Carlisle.]

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I make no apology for again raising the question of the murder of British prisoners of war in May 1940 at Wormhoudt in France. The debate is essentially for the benefit of the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, not for my benefit. I understand that he will be the first Defence Minister in 48 years to speak on this matter.
The background to the massacre of the 80 or so British prisoners of war has been fairly well rehearsed in recent weeks, if not in recent years. Following my parliamentary question to the Home Secretary on 21 April, I briefly outlined certain of the circumstances on 25 May, as reported in columns 351 to 356 of Hansard. I need not repeat them, as I am well aware the Minister knows the background. I want to give him the opportunity to make a progress report to the House on what has been happening since the Home Secretary made his commitment on 21 April that the case would be re-examined. I hope that the Minister can answer some specific questions of which I gave him notice yesterday. I should be grateful if he would answer in detail, but if he cannot I presume that he will write to me. Because I have had no contact with the Ministry of Defence since that date, other than brief correspondence, the Minister should tell us what contact has been made with the West German authorities since April.
We are entitled to know in what year the Government were aware that Wilhelm Mohnke had returned from his Russian imprisonment. According to documents produced by the War Crimes Interrogation Unit—based on the evidence of British prisoners and later, German prisoners—he is held to be responsible for giving the order that no prisoners be taken in the barn at Wormhoudt on 28 May 1940. Mohnke was imprisoned by the Russians when we and others were looking for him.
We need to know whether the Government were at any time informed of, or involved in, any debriefing or questioning of Mohnke after his Russian imprisonment. I understand that he was debriefed by the Americans. We do not know whether they concerned themselves solely with his activities or imprisonment by the Russians several years after the end of the war, or whether they raised allegations about war crimes by Mohnke in 1940 and 1944.
We need to have it put on the record whether the Government accept that there was a massacre at Wormhoudt in May 1944 by an SS unit. To the best of my knowledge, that has never been admitted in public. Have the Government ever been requested by the West German authorities to provide any information regarding allegations of war crimes and murder involving Mohnke and personnel under his command and, if so, when? It is a matter of public record that at least twice in the 1970s the German authorities looked at some of the allegations regarding Mohnke. It is inconceivable that they did not request assistance from the British authorities. I know for certain that they did not request any help from British survivors.
We should know—I make no complaint; I have been moderate on this point—whether the Government have been asked at any time since the incident by any of the

British regiments concerned to follow up the case against Mohnke. From what I have read and heard, there appears to have been silence. The Government could have done that in the normal way, which is generally behind closed doors. The public have a right to know whether that point has ever been pursued.
Another point of substance that must be raised is why the material about the Wormhoudt massacre—material that is in British hands—is still being kept secret. I shall expand briefly on this question. The Minister will forgive me for doing that, but it does not change the thrust of the question. I understand that, essentially, documents are closed for 75 years after the end of the war. That is longer than the normal 30-year rule and I have looked at some of the reasons for documents being closed for the longer period.
I understand that documents are kept closed for more than 30 years if they contain information about individuals, the disclosure of which would cause distress or embarrassment to living persons or their immediate descendants. Since 1982, when the Government produced a White Paper, Cmnd. 8531, on modern public records, they have accepted that instead of distress or embarrassment the criterion should be distress or danger. Does that criterion apply to British citizens or foreign nationals?
None of the five known survivors from the barn at Wormhoudt would be placed in any distress, danger or embarrassment by the files being made available. No descendant of any person killed at Wormhoudt, or who has now died, having been one of the few other survivors, has ever contacted me asking me to shut up and not to raise the matter. The opposite has been the case. I have been on the receiving end of requests and have quite specifically been asked by people who want to know how their father or grandfather died. Those people were not properly informed about that at the time. I accept that the people who were massacred were lost and that nobody knew about the massacre until at least late 1943.
A couple of weeks ago I was asked by a lady who is in her 50s, and through her that lady's mother who is now in her 80s, to find out how her father died in the barn. I spoke to her on the phone because I did not want to send the information in a cold way. Her father was one of two people in the barn who made the supreme sacrifice by throwing himself on top of a live grenade in order to protect his comrades. The Minister will know that I have written separately about at least three acts of supreme bravery that day which led to three British soldiers giving up their lives to protect their comrades. I have asked whether that matter can be looked at further, because the evidence about those acts of bravery is not only contained in the documents held by the Government, but is known to the five surviving eye witnesses to those events.
I stress that the release of the records would cause no danger, distress or embarrassment to any British citizen. It surely cannot be that the danger, distress and embarrassment that we are seeking to avoid is to Mr. Mohnke. The Minister must place that clearly on the record.
My next question to the Minister is whether any consideration had been given to awarding posthumous awards for bravery.
I, the House and the country would like to know whether the Government have ever acted for, or taken over, any other nation's investigation into alleged war crimes for which Mohnke is held responsible. I have seen


evidence from Canada that the Government took over the investigations into alleged war crimes in 1944 in which Mohnke was involved. As my hon. and learned Friends would say, today I took further and better legal advice and found that some years ago the House repatriated the Canadian constitution. Therefore, there is no conceivable way that that could still be operated by this House. The Government certainly conducted inquiries related to Mohnke on behalf of another country.
Have the Government ever initiated contact with the West German authorities since the inception of the Federal Republic to inquire about the whereabouts and status of those men—they were all men—considered to be the perpetrators of the Wormhoudt massacre? There is abundant evidence in the British files that I have seen, and probably in the ones that are being kept closed, about the Germans concerned—some of whom were prisoners of war and others of whom were identified. It is fairly easy to check that. An enormous amount of record material from the war is still maintained, as I have discovered over the past few months.
Have the Government ever requested help from the Russian authorities? Wilhelm Mohnke was held prisoner by the Russians for several years, having been taken prisoner of war by them at the fall of the bunker of whose administration he was in charge. It is inconceivable that, having been asked by the allied powers whether they knew about him the Russians did not interrogate him or ask about his war record—where he was every day and every week of the year. That was the normal procedure. Having read the War Crimes Interrogation Unit's reports Nos. 1500 and 1650, I know that almost every German prisoner had to give details about where he had served during the war so that a pattern could be established. I imagine that the Russian military investigators did the same thing.
Have the Government ever requested help from the Russian authorities to establish whether Mohnke made any statements during his years of imprisonment in Russia about the allegations made against him in respect of war crimes such as the Wormhoudt massacre? In the late 1940s and early 1950s the British Government placed Mohnke's name on the United Nations war crimes list, so it is not as though we were not interested in the matter. The question naturally follows whether we asked the Russians about him.
As I told the Minister earlier, I shall give him more than half the time in this Adjournment debate. I hope that he will be able to make a detailed progress report. No doubt this will not be an end to the matter, but my hon. Friends and I and those who read the reports of our proceedings will read with interest what the Minister has to say.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on his success in the ballot, which provides me with a timely opportunity to report to the House on the Wormhoudt massacre and the action that we have taken and will take in relation to the evidence.
This matter was first brought to the attention of the House by the hon. Gentleman on 21 April. On that occasion my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in

reply that the relevant material was being rigorously re-examined in the Ministry of Defence to see whether it provided a basis for further action. I should like to take this opportunity to say that this is clearly a most serious matter and to stress that we fully appreciate and share the concern of all those involved. If it is possible to bring anyone to justice for this crime, we must all be anxious that this should be done.
Perhaps it will help the House if I rehearse the events of 28 May 1940. There can be no doubt that on that day a considerable number of British soldiers were murdered near the small village of Wormhoudt in France. It has never been possible, despite all efforts, to discover the exact figure. That is partly due to the number of men missing from various units as a result of that day's fighting, and partly due to the removal of means of identification from the men when they were taken prisoner—they subsequently died—and the loss of many official records during the ensuing evacuation. It was not possible for us to make investigations at the spot until the area was again in allied hands in 1944.
The men, estimated to number between 50 and 150—it was probably between 80 and 90—mainly belonged to the 2nd Battalion the Royal Warwickshire Regiment, but they also included men from the Cheshire Regiment and from the Royal Artillery. The soldiers were part of the defensive perimeter being held at all cost by the allied Armies round Dunkirk, to enable as many as possible from the British Expeditionary Force and their French comrades-in-arms to be evacuated from the beaches.
In common with other actions on the Dunkirk perimeter, the fighting in and around Wormhoudt that day was very fierce and often confused. The German forces involved, though outnumbering the British, encountered stiff resistance and suffered many casualties, including the commander of the SS battalion trying to capture Wormhoudt. The accounts of those who survived that day vary in some details, but it is clear that eventually the defenders' gallant resistance was overcome and that several groups of men who had been taken prisoner and disarmed towards the end of the fighting around the village were collected together by the SS soldiers and marched off to a small barn some distance away.
A number of other prisoners seem to have been brought to join that group near the barn, and at least one man who fell out on the way to the barn was bayoneted by the SS German escorts. At the barn the men were herded inside. Any thought that our men had that this was to shelter them from the heavy rain that was now falling was short-lived.
The barn was too crowded for the wounded to lie down and the only British officer who appears to have been present was brusquely rebuffed when he protested about the lack of room in the barn. The SS troops who had taken the men to the barn then threw grenades in among them, causing many casualties. After that, some of the dazed prisoners were ordered out into the field in small groups and were then shot: the last act of some of those men was to turn and face their killers. The SS men then changed their tactics and, standing along the sides of the barn, which was of a fairly open construction, shot at those still in the building. The SS troops' final act was to enter the barn to kill any prisoners they thought were still alive. They then left the scene.
During the attack, three men at least appear to have escaped from the barn—one to hide successfully, the other


two, including the officer, to be followed and shot. The officer died; the wounded man he had dragged with him survived, despite being further wounded.
Despite the ferocity of the attack, a number of men survived. Most of them stayed near the barn for between two and four days, during which time further men died from their wounds. The men left near the barn, and eventually those who had moved away from it, were all found by other German soldiers who were not members of the SS. Those German soldiers took proper care of the men and they were thereafter given the necessary medical attention and correctly treated as prisoners of war. In all, it would appear that there 14 survivors of the massacre in the barn. The House will be aware that in these harrowing circumstances there many individual acts of bravery. Witnesses have particularly testified to the conduct of the officer and two senior NCOs involved in the shooting at the barn.
The House will join me and the hon. Gentleman in paying respect to the courage and bearing of the men murdered and to the proud record of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment. The hon. Gentleman has written to me about posthumous awards for gallantry, and I shall reply to him separately and soon.
The crime first came to light in this country in late 1943. That was when some of the survivors, wounded and prisoners of war, were repatriated, and they spoke of their ordeal. When their interviews were studied, it became evident that a serious crime had been committed, and investigations began. They continued from 1944 onwards.
As soon as it was possible, inquiries were made at the scene and statements were taken from several local people, none of whom, however, was a witness to the crime. Eight British survivors were eventually found by the investigators and detailed statements were taken from them. More than 50 voluntary statements were taken from 38 former SS men who had been in the regiment concerned on 28 May 1940. Others were interrogated and reported on. Some key figures, however, were not interviewed. Some were known to have been killed later in the war. Others, like the former SS Captain, by then SS General, Mohnke, could not he traced or were known to be detained elsewhere and unavailable.
The investigation had been taken over in late 1945 by the newly established War Crimes Interrogation Unit led by Lieutenant-Colonel Scotland. This unit took the information already collected and gathered much more, enabling an outline of events to be established and reports on the case to be made.
I do not wish to prejudice the outcome of this matter, but I must tell the House that from all the information and statements collected during the investigation, it was then concluded that there was insufficient evidence of identification and testimony to bring to trial any of the German SS soldiers who were thought possibly to have committed the murders.
However, Lieutenant-Colonel Scotland concluded that a German officer had been present and had been responsible for ordering the shooting of the prisoners of war. He identified this officer as the then Captain Mohnke. It is not clear from our review of the evidence on what grounds Lieutenant-Colonel Scotland was so definite in his accusation. I can say that three of the eight British survivors interviewed had mentioned the presence of a German officer. Only one gave a specific description, and he is now believed to be dead. The only evidence that

Mohnke had ordered the shooting came as hearsay from two Germans, both of whom said that others had told them that Mohnke gave such an order: neither had witnessed the order being given and those who were supposed to have told them of it either denied it or could not be found.
Clearly the fact that Mohnke was not available for questioning hindered the investigation, but with no more evidence than was available in the late 1940s, the crime remained unresolved, there being insufficient evidence to bring the case to court.
Before I deal with the action that we now propose, I would like to turn to a number of points of which the hon. Gentleman kindly gave me notice, and which he has just repeated.
In 1948, the British Government of the day took the decision, after careful consideration, to cease war crimes trials. The War Crimes Interrogation Unit was wound up and responsibility for any further German war crimes trials was handed over to the German courts constituted under the authority of the allied occupying powers. The Canadian Government had ceased war crimes investigations in 1947 before the British decision, and had handed over material on unresolved cases to the British investigators. A number of Canadian cases were brought to trial by the British: those unresolved in 1948 remained so with the British decision to cease trials. However, we are now in touch with the Canadian authorities and will co-operate fully with their current renewed investigations.
With the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany as a sovereign state, the responsibility for further prosecutions passed to the newly established sovereign German courts. That was the position when Mohnke was released by the Russians in 1955, and it remains the position today. There is, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained, no jurisdiction in this country in the present case and there is no possibility of extradition. The courts in the Federal Republic of Germany would of course have jurisdiction, and I understand that the public prosecutor in Lubeck has agreed to re-open the case and to take up the investigation.
The hon. Member has raised a number of questions about the Government's knowledge and actions concerning this case over the years. When the public prosecutor in Lubeck investigated the case against Mohnke between 1973 and 1976, we understand that he concluded that he did not have enough evidence to mount a prosecution. We have been unable to find any evidence that the Government have ever been requested by the authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany to provide information in connection with this case. Nor, so far as we are aware, have any of the regiments concerned ever officially pressed for the allegations against Mohnke to be followed up.
Similarly, we are not aware whether the British Government specifically knew that Mohnke had returned to Germany, nor have we found any evidence of British involvement in or knowledge of his interrogation on his return.
We have found no evidence that the Government have asked the authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany since its inception about any of the men thought possibly to have been the perpetrators of the massacre; nor are we aware of any approach having been made to the Soviet authorities about Mohnke.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Was there any contact from the Nachrichtensdienst, the intelligence services, or the Verfussungschutz or the Bundeskriminalamt about the 1955 events? Was no initiative taken?

Mr. Freeman: I have given the House and the hon. Gentleman the facts as available to me about contacts between the British Government and their agencies and those of the Federal Republic.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr raised the question of the closed records. Public records relating to Wilhelm Mohnke and the Wormhoudt massacre are subject to the provisions of the Public Records Act 1958. The Act provides for certain records over 30 years old to be retained by Departments for administrative or other reasons, under section 3(4); or to be closed for extended periods within the public record office under section 5(1), in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the White Paper "Modern Public Records".
Those criteria are as set out in paragraph 26: exceptionally sensitive papers, the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest whether on security or other grounds; documents containing information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which would or might constitute a breach of good faith; and documents containing information about individuals, the disclosure of which would cause distress or embarrassment to living persons or their immediate descendants. Paragraph 27 of the White Paper notes that sensitivity should not be deemed to cover party politial sensitivity and that distress and danger should be the criteria rather than distress and embarrassment.
A file containing reports of the incident is available for public inspection in the Public Records Office, reference TS 26/206. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of that. I can inform the House that we have now collected and collated all the relevant material from our records, so that stage of our work is complete.
I conclude by repeating that the Government take the matter very seriously and will now make all the evidence we have available to the relevant authorities in the Federal Republic of Germany, with whom we are in touch. Further, we will co-operate in every way to facilitate their inquiries. At the end of the day, no matter how horrendous the crime committed on 28 May 1940, and however serious our concern, I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it must be a matter for the relevant authorities in the Federal Republic of Germany to consider the evidence and decide whether a case can be brought against any individuals who may have been involved.
The Wormhoudt massacre was a sordid, brutal and dishonourable event in a bloody war, and the British Government will do their part to facilitate justice.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on his persistence in this matter. I supported him when the matter was first raised with the Home Secretary, so I have some locus and an increasing interest in it. I say a great "Thank you" to the Minister for his most serious reply. It was an example of how an Adjournment debate on such a difficult matter should be handled. I have no doubt of his sincerity.
I return to the question of the mid-1950s because, as it happens, I was in the Rhine Army and all the Scots Greys were taken to the Hohne site—that is, the site of Belsen. It is firmly in my mind that undertakings were given—obviously, not to us as national service men—that everything would be done to ensure that those responsible for war crimes were brought to book.
From my understanding of the 1950s—and I have made various inquiries—there was an obligation on the German authorities to bring to the notice of the British anyone suspected of war crimes who returned from eastern Europe. My hon. Friend has similar information, and it ties up with the Canadian example. I admit that it is difficult to go back 33, 34 or 35 years, but the Verfussungschutz—the society for the protection of the constitution—and the German Nachrichtensdienst have extremely efficient records. Equally, the Bundeskriminalamt, the German police, are as efficient as any in the world.
What I find difficult to understand is why on earth those organisations were not asked those questions. Was there no contact? Had people simply washed their hands of it in the mid-1950s? As a young national service man in Germany at the time, I can tell the Minister that that was certainly not my impression. The undertaking was given that there would be an effort to get to the root of all these matters—not least from the French, the Americans, the British and—as it related to them—the Russians. I do not understand how a void developed in the 1950s about an agreement dating from 1947 for the Canadians and 1948 for the British.
There are people to be questioned about the undertakings given. One of the people to question is my noble Friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, who knows a great deal about what happened in Germany immediately after the war. My concrete suggestion is that those around at the time should be questioned, so that—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half and hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the debate without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nineteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.